Catholic Voters and Moral Choices: A Response to 'Catholic Answers'

Traditional Catholic reflections and Reports ^ | Oct 2006 | Thomas Storck

[annalex]

I think the article misses the point of the Guide. It is supposed to be a simple aid in narrowing down the choices. It correctly informs the voter that abortion (for example) is an intrinsic evil, when war (also for example) is something that requires further discernment.

Our enemies would like nothing better than to put the Catholic voter back on the Democrat party reservation.

[Tax-chick]

a politician who proclaims his agreement with Catholic morality on the five issues listed above may then inaugurate any war with however flimsy a pretext

Is this person American? He thinks a Congressman or State Senator "may inaugurate any war" ... how?

Karl Rove wasn't even elected!

[jobim]

As the poster, what do you think?

Why attack Catholic Answers for its attempt to clarify issues? Does Storck wish to help Catholics to make moral choices, or does he have a bone to pick with Catholic Answers? Is his stance comparable to Dale Vree's at NOR?

[ArrogantBustard]

The author appears to be grasping for an excuse to vote for pro-abortion, pro-embryonic-stem-cell-research, pro-euthanasia, pro-sodomy, pro-cloning politicians, because they also happen to be pacifists.

[jobim]

Thanks for your observation. I think you might be right: he's proposing a Catholic Voter's guide for Utopian Catholics who Can't Bring Themselves to Vote.

As it is said, politics is the art of the possible. We cannot compromise with our faith (faith and morals) but we must compromise with the Public Square to mitigate evil.

[ArrogantBustard]

Actually, he's suggesting a sixth criterion: support of unjust wars. You can't vote for a politician who would wage unjust wars ... that's murder as surely as abortion is murder. The not-so-hidden subtext is the assumption that the ongoing efforts to destroy islamic terrorists in Iraq and other places constitute an unjust war. This belief seems common, though not universal, in 'Traditionalist' circles. I disagree with them. The trouble with this fellow is that he's so vehemently opposed to the war on islamic terrorists that he's willing to vote for pro-sodomy, pro-abortion, pro-cloning, pro-cannibalism, pro-euthanasia politicians in order to end the war. And he's trying to twist the facts sufficiently to give the appearance that Catholic teaching justifies such a vote.

I disagree.

[jobim]

...it does a disservice to Catholic discourse and places a restriction on Catholic voters which the Church has explicitly denied. Catholic voters must indeed vote with an informed Catholic conscience, but such a conscience cannot be neatly captured by the five issues - important as they are - enumerated by the Voter's Guide.

This is so contorted that I assumed he had another agenda. Is he really proposing a vote for a pro-abortion, etc candidate who was against the war? That position is untenable, as you say. That's why I assumed he would either vote for a fringe candidate who was right on all of the issues (as he sees it) or not vote at all. At least I believe that is what the NOR espouses. But as adults we are compelled to look truthfully at candidates who have a chance at winning, and vote where the damage to the non-negotiables is least.

[mockingbyrd]

"Abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, cloning of humans and same sex "marriage." No Catholic, asserts Catholic Answers, may compromise on any of these since they are all intrinsically evil."

Amen and hubba hubba!

The way some "traditional" Catholics (including NOR and now even the Wanderer) are misrepresenting the just war doctrine is reprehensible. Their view is that you can only respond if some nation attacks you, which is not what the Church teaches. It is the equivalent to teaching that you can only respond to a personal assailant after he has shot you. By their reasoning, the European front in World War II was unjust, because Hilter did not attack us. Even though he declared was on us, we could not have responded because he didn't attack us.

And now to attempt to hold such a misunderstanding at the same level as the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life is morally repugnant.

[bornacatholic]

It figures this would be on TCR. Mr. Hand initiated an Unjust War against the current War in Iraq (we are currently there on a UN Mandate, btw) and attacked, as opposed to the Pope, several bloggers. They responded and he was nuked. I don't think he will ever recover. When push came to shove it was made apparent Hand was just making stuff up.

I fail to see how this "critique" serves any purpose at all. Normally,I am an admirer of Mr. Storck. I think he is wrong on this point.

But in recent years they have become more involved in politics, and now with their political action arm have explicitly entered the area of electoral politics.

Um, yeah. Thanks for pointing that out. I guess it does come as something of a shock to discover that when an organisation creates a "political action arm" it sorta hints that maybe, just maybe, they are gonna become politically active.

It is also interesting that Catholic Answers Action has called their new voting guide for Protestants a voting guide for Christians. By doing so, they implicitly endorse the heretical notion that Catholics are not Christians

*PUHLEEZE. It is called "meeting people where they live" Prots don't think we are Christians. However, THIS guide is about POLITICS. NOT DOCTRINE. CAPICHE?

Good Gravy. This bit of leaden pedantry and stretching to criticise makes the whole piece suspect.

And you know what, in making that criticism, HE is implicitly charging the Catholic Church with heretical practices because of its TRADITIONAL Practice.

Two can play this game :)

Follow...

Alexander VII

Congregation De Propaganda Fide "Instruction to the Vicars Apostolic of Tonkin and Cochinchina (1659)

... Finally, by conforming to the norms of evangelical charity, they must be ready to adapt themselves to the mentality and customs of others so as not to be a burden to the companions with whom they live, nor earn dishonour or even dislike of outsiders, but rather become, like the apostle, all things to all men...admire and praise whatever merits praise. As regards what is not praiseworthy, while it must not be extolled as is done by flatterers, you will be prudent enough not to pass judgement on it, or, in any case, not to condemn it rashly or exaggeradely. As for what is evil, it shouild be dismissed by a nod of the head or by silence rather than by words, without losing the occasions, when souls have become disposed to recieve the truth, to uproot it imperceptibly

OBVIOUSLY, Catholic Answers, not Mr. Storck is solidly in line with Tradition.

Mr. Storck, in the line of Traditonal Catholic Orthopraxis, owes an apology to Catholic Answers. Perhaps HE can issue a guide of, oh, I dunno, maybe 600-70 pages of moral casuistry vis a vis politics. I am sure it will be a best seller.

BTW, I guess my post pushes back to the 17th Century the advent of Indifferentism and Ecumenical Madness and destructive Modernism :)

And, btw2, what does this information do to the critics of Johannes Paulus Magnus and his days of prayers for peace with "those people?" I predict, little...

[BlessedBeGod]

Sounds like this guy is trying to make an excuse for voting Democrat.

[sitetest]

Dear bornacatholic,

"Normally,I am an admirer of Mr. Storck."

Here, we differ, my friend.

Mr. Storck went mad a while back, along with the senior editorial staff of the New Oxford Review.


sitetest

[mockingbyrd]

"Mr. Storck went mad a while back, along with the senior editorial staff of the New Oxford Review."

No kidding. They lost all credibility years ago now.

[G Larry]

The article misleads in it's attempt to equivicate.

In claiming a "flimsy" basis for going to war it ignores a host of facts.

The Catholic Answers Voters Guide is solid, the rebuttal is not!

[bornacatholic]

Oh. I didnt know that. Thanks. I never read the mag. The few things I have read on line by Storck seemed reasonable.

Now, I 'spose I'll have to admit, again, that you know more than me - and it ain't even Lent yet.

[sitetest]

Dear bornacatholic,

NOR used to be a pretty good read. Spritely orthodox, fun-loving and humorous in its critique of heterodoxy and heresy, I used to wait every month for its arrival. I learned a lot. I think maybe I was even a marginally better Catholic for reading it.

Then, the tone began to change, the cream began to curdle. The once-gentle fun-poking at silliness and stupidity took on an increasingly strident tone until eventually, I cringed every time it arrived in the mail, fearful of what new insults it would aim at which new victims. I just about had had it when they went after Fr. Neuhaus for being a universalist, specifically for what he wrote in his book, "Death on a Friday Afternoon: Meditations on the Last Words of Jesus from the Cross."

I actually read the book. I own a copy. I didn't recognize the arguments they said Fr. Neuhaus put forward in the book from what I read.

Their nasty review of Fr. Neuhaus turned into something of a feud, which Fr. Neuhaus tried studiously to avoid, but eventually had to engage when they wouldn't let it go.

At that point, I'd paid up a couple of extra years' of subscription, but vowed not to renew.

Our house has been NOR-free for some time, now, and the sun shines brighter, the grass is greener, and the honeysuckles smell sweeter.


sitetest

[reductio]

"A Catholic who sits on his hands and doesn't vote on this issue is aiding and abetting the pro-abort machine."

This is incorrect. It is not at all the case that a Catholic who does not vote on this issue is aiding and abetting the pro-abortion machine.