See this is so typically liberal... The church can make rules but he does not have to follow them and yet he can still be a member and receive Communion. How cool is that? His bishop can say "don't come to Communion if you are pro-choice" but he can disobey the bishop outright, disobey church teaching, give a terrible example to Catholic youths and still get Communion because HE sees nothing wrong with disobeying the bishop and the Church and he does not think God would mind him doing this. He thinks abortion is murder but he would allow women to murder their children as long as THEY don't think it is murder. And I guess he thinks that's okay with God too.
"To each his own" said the old maid as she "kissed the cow."
Thanks for clearing things up!
Dear Fr. Torraco, Could you please comment on the statement below made by presidential candidate John Kerry on Monday? This was in response to a question posed to him about the apparent incosistency of being pro-abortion despite the fact that he calls himself a Catholic:
"I'm not a church spokesman. I'm a legislator running for president. My oath is to uphold the Constitution of the United States in my public life. My oath privately between me and God was defined in the Catholic church by Pius XXIII and Pope Paul VI in the Vatican II, which allows for freedom of conscience for Catholics with respect to these choices, and that is exactly where I am. And it is separate. Our constitution separates church and state, and they should be reminded of that."
(Mr. Kerry apparently meant John XXIII, as there is no Pius XXIII.)
He also criticized pro-life legislators who are against abortion but support the death penalty, as if the two positions are in opposition to each other. God help us if Mr. Kerry's "theology" scandalizes many uninformed or poorly catechized Catholics.
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 04-07-2004:
Any political candidate that makes such a statement is in error. Specifically, there are two errors: 1) the meaning of conscience, and 2) the moral status of abortion and capital punishment.
1) First of all, let's explain what conscience is and what conscience is NOT.
Conscience is NOT the same as your opinions or feelings. Conscience cannot be identical with your feelings because conscience is the activity of your intellect in judging the rightness or wrongness of your actions or omissions, past, present, or future, while your feelings come from another part of your soul and should be governed by your intellect and will. Conscience is not identical with your opinions because your intellect bases its judgment upon the natural moral law, which is inherent in your human nature and is identical with the Ten Commandments. Unlike the civil laws made by legislators, or the opinions that you hold, the natural moral law is not anything that you invent, but rather discover within yourself and is the governing norm of your conscience. In short, Conscience is the voice of truth within you, and your opinions need to be in harmony with that truth. As a Catholic, you have the benefit of the Church?s teaching authority or Magisterium endowed upon her by Christ. The Magisterium assists you and all people of good will in understanding the natural moral law as it relates to specific issues. As a Catholic, you have the obligation to be correctly informed and normed by the teaching of the Church?s Magisterium. As for your feelings, they need to be educated by virtue so as to be in harmony with conscience?s voice of truth. In this way, you will have a sound conscience, according to which we you will feel guilty when you are guilty, and feel morally upright when you are morally upright. We should strive to avoid the two opposite extremes of a lax conscience and a scrupulous conscience. Meeting the obligation of continually attending to this formation of conscience will increase the likelihood that, in the actual operation or activity of conscience, you will act with a certain conscience, which clearly perceives that a given concrete action is a good action that was rightly done or should be done. Being correctly informed and certain in the actual operation of conscience is the goal of the continuing formation of conscience. Otherwise put, you should strive to avoid being incorrectly informed and doubtful in the actual judgment of conscience about a particular action or omission. You should never act on a doubtful conscience.
Thus, if freedom of conscience is to mean anything, it means the freedom to be correctly informed by the objective moral order, and the freedom to act accordingly. No politician who is pro-abortion may claim to be Catholic. It would be a contradiction in terms.
2) Secondly, if a political candidate supported abortion, or any other moral evil, such as assisted suicide and euthanasia, for that matter, it would not be morally permissible for you to vote for that person. This is because, in voting for such a person, you would become an accomplice in the moral evil at issue. For this reason, moral evils such as abortion, euthanasia and assisted suicide are examples of a ?disqualifying issue.? A disqualifying issue is one which is of such gravity and importance that it allows for no political maneuvering. It is an issue that strikes at the heart of the human person and is non-negotiable. A disqualifying issue is one of such enormity that by itself renders a candidate for office unacceptable regardless of his position on other matters. You must sacrifice your feelings on other issues because you know that you cannot participate in any way in an approval of a violent and evil violation of basic human rights. A candidate for office who supports abortion rights or any other moral evil has disqualified himself as a person that you can vote for. You do not have to vote for a person because he is pro-life. But you may not vote for any candidate who supports abortion rights. Key to understanding the point above about ?disqualifying issues? is the distinction between policy and moral principle. On the one hand, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches to accomplishing a morally acceptable goal. For example, in a society?s effort to distribute the goods of health care to its citizens, there can be legitimate disagreement among citizens and political candidates alike as to whether this or that health care plan would most effectively accomplish society?s goal. In the pursuit of the best possible policy or strategy, technical as distinct (although not separate) from moral reason is operative. Technical reason is the kind of reasoning involved in arriving at the most efficient or effective result. On the other hand, no policy or strategy that is opposed to the moral principles of the natural law is morally acceptable. Thus, technical reason should always be subordinate to and normed by moral reason, the kind of reasoning that is the activity of conscience and that is based on the natural moral law. 3) Thirdly, it is not correct to think of abortion and capital punishment as the very same kind of moral issue. On the one hand, direct abortion is an intrinsic evil, and cannot be justified for any purpose or in any circumstances. On the other hand, the Church has always taught that it is the right and responsibility of the legitimate temporal authority to defend and preserve the common good, and more specifically to defend citizens against the aggressor. This defense against the aggressor may resort to the death penalty if no other means of defense is sufficient. The point here is that the death penalty is understood as an act of self-defense on the part of civil society. In more recent times, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II has taught that the need for such self-defense to resort to the death penalty is ?rare, if not virtually nonexistent.? Thus, while the Pope is saying that the burden of proving the need for the death penalty in specific cases should rest on the shoulders of the legitimate temporal authority, it remains true that the legitimate temporal authority alone has the authority to determine if and when a ?rare? case arises that warrants the death penalty. Moreover, if such a rare case does arise and requires resorting to capital punishment, this societal act of self-defense would be a *morally good action* even if it does have the unintended and unavoidable evil effect of the death of the aggressor. Thus, unlike the case of abortion, it would be morally irresponsible to rule out all such ?rare? possibilities a priori, just as it would be morally irresponsible to apply the death penalty indiscriminately.
COPYRIGHT 2004
Abortion is intrinsically evil and everyone is born knowing this because of the law of God written on their hearts. Therefore abortion is ALWAYS WRONG and no Catholic may be pro-choice or vote for a pro-choice politician without commiting grave sin. The church's teaching on abortion IS BINDING on the conscience it is NOT, as Ellen Ratner said, "something bewteen you and God."
Also this priest has written:
There are certain issues that absolutely disqualify a candidate from receiving a single Catholic vote. Among these disqualifiying issues (which cannot be placed in the same category as other issues) are pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, and pro- so-called "same sex marriage," all of which are intrinsic evils that cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances. :
So I have no idea whatsoever as to why Kerry's bisop is letting him get Communion when he supports "intrinsic evils that cannot be morally justified for any reason or set of circumstances."
John Kerry can receive Communion but if I vote for him I can't!!!!! I think my head is going to explode!!!!