AmericanPapist Comments
I wonder how many might question the prudence of a German Catholic priest had he denied Nazi sympathizers communion?
Would anyone have denied the obligation of the Catholic clergy to denounce the Nazis or their supporters by name?
Why are we crystal clear in our opposition when a political party or national candidate advocates the right to kill an ethnic group, yet so fuzzy when a political party or candidate advocates the right to kill babies in the womb?
It does indeed distract from the USCCB's equivocations.
What, praytell, IS the Church's teaching on voting for genocidal maniacs who PROMISE genocide?
Either abortion is genocide or it is not. If it is, then the 9th circle needs to be enlarged. If it is, then Fr. Newman is 100% correct.
Didn't Bishops Vann and Farrell in Texas take essentially the same position as Fr. Newman?
Quoting from lifesite news,
"Bishop Emeritus Rene Henry Gracida of Corpus Christi, TX, told LifeSiteNews.com (LSN) his reaction to Fr. Newman's letter "is one of admiration and awe. I find nothing in what he has written that is at variance with the Magisterium of the Church. He is to be congratulated."
Bishop Vasa of Baker, OR told LSN that, while Fr. Newman was correct to say that voting for Obama constitutes a material offense against moral teaching, it would nonetheless be impossible to "to ascertain with any degree of certainty the sinfulness of the action of any particular voter" as many voters may or may not have been aware of Obama’s extreme stance on abortion."
Bp Vasa, please explain how such a thing could ever happen... at least in the Diocese of Baker, OR? Who could possibly be responsible for such an oversight, and how should they be held accountable?
"how to pastorally yet powerfully and effectively preach this message"
While it's possible to agree that this is the issue, it's slightly imprudent - in the context of the history of the Church - to argue that Fr. Newman's stance is somehow new or that it is "above his pay grade." That seems to assume that parishes should primarily be concerned with inclusion and persuasion rather than with the Sacraments and the souls of parishioners.
In that light it is not a matter of "preaching," but a matter of Sacramental authority and it is not, therefore, above a parish priest's pay grade - especially one that knows his parishioners (otherwise they're just glorified Eucharistic ministers). Hence it's possible to have a priest that is an ineffective preacher, but still an effective and holy steward of souls and the Sacraments. Think of the example of the Cure D'Ars, whose actions in regard to the Sacraments would have him ridden out of Charleston on a rail.
It is only unusual for someone to refrain from receiving the Eucharist because we today have lost the sense of its importance. We do not really feel its meaning except insofar as it is "something Catholics do together." But it is not the case that to refrain from receiving is the same as removing oneself from membership in the Church. In other words, what would be more effective pastorally, in my opinion, would be to restore the thought among Catholics that maybe they're casual weekyl reception is somehow problematic.
"My AmP Poll asking 'Do you agree with Fr. Newman's Letter' shows 69.5% yes, 21.1% no, and 9.5% undecided. I think it's very clear where the majority of AmP readers stand on this question."
Ok, that's interesting. Now, I wonder, can 69.5% of AmP readers explain the difference between PROXIMATE material cooperation in evil, and REMOTE? If so, we can fruitfully continue the conversation.
If not, besides having to go back to Morals 101 (which is fine by me, as people have a right and a need to know these things), I can remind folks that sloppy thinking is, in the end, no one's friend.
Ed,
I'd be interested in your thoughts on this matter. It seems to me that the Obama situation goes beyond remote material cooperation. I have difficult seeing how it is NOT proximate material cooperation.
Obama is not merely an advocate of, "let's maintain the status quo on abortion", nor is he pro-abortion but running for a position that is unrelated to abortion (dogcatcher, or more realistically the comptroller in many states). Rather, Obama has made very clear his intent with abortion and has given his word to radically expand the genocide worldwide.
If, as Ratzinger writes, voting for an Obama-esque candidate would only be remote material cooperation if proportionate reasons allow for it, how is the moral cooperation to be evaluated when there are clearly no proportionate reasons to the current genocide?
No disrespect is intended to Dr Peters or AmP, but from my viewpoint Fr Newman's homily is not an academic paper. Fr Newman has written that it was not intended to go beyond St Mary's parish, and that it was part of a continuing series of homilies/catechesis.
I appreciate the comment on "sloppy thinking" but given the target audience, I am not going to deduct very many points for what I would call "technical errors".
If this homily was to be submitted for publication, then I think that an extensive rewrite would be warranted.
Brian, is anything posted on the internet intended for a tiny audience? That is simply not plausible. And I have real problems with a position which asserts that precise thinking is a requirement for academics, but not for ordinary folks. Too me, it seems that just the opposite emphasis is in order.
My concern is that whether people are subjectively guilty of mortal sin for voting for Obama is questionable. I would think that few people voted for Obama knowing that it was wrong. They may have been told so, but they didn't believe it. Many people don't even remember when abortion was illegal and really think it is sort of insane to imagine that it could ever be illegal again. Meanwhile, they believed that Obama would help poor people and stop the war.... I couldn't disagree more with this way of thinking, but no matter how wrong or confused it is, many people genuinely thought this way. I can't see that as a mortal sin.
Perhaps Fr.Newman believed he had catechized his people well enough that they should have known better. But if they knew better, why would they vote that way? Are we imagining people saying, "Well I know it will lead to much more abortion if Obama is elected, but he is going to send folks at my income level a $500 check every year, so I'll vote for him anyway."?
I don't think this is too likely. Perhaps people are culpable in a more subtle way for not educating themselves more about Catholic teaching and about what a horror abortion really is. But I don't think anyone, even Fr. Newman, can judge what someone else's culpability really is in such a matter, at least not outside of the confessional-and then it is a case where a person has already begun to understand his own culpability. Other than that I don't think it is possible to say whether sin is involved in this.
Susan Peterson
I thought the priests in my parish - a very traditional one at that - went to heroic levels to ensure parishioners were duly catechized about responsible voting. Yet, a few parishioners I have spoken with are aware of a very small minority who claimed to have voted for Obama.
The bottom line is that in the face of such indepth catechesis people voted for a man whom they were told promised to increase the genocide, then I think those folks have some soul searching to do. And they should do so before they present themselves for Communion.
For the vast majority of Catholics "out there", consider that most are getting their catechesis from the New York Times, MSNBC and other sources grossly distorting Catholic teaching.
One could argue that they should be responsible to know what the Catholic Church teaches. However, 35-40 years of nonfeasance from the episcopacy and parish pulpits is what fueled their lack of interest.
If it were walking, breathing people being killed at a rate of 4000 daily, you can bet your boots the silence would not be as deafening and Communion bans would not be bounced around like a pingpong ball.
When have you last heard the word "abortion" in your parish prior to the election cycle? How about during?
Now that would make an interesting poll.
a few mistakes committed out of zealousness?
is that what i'm supposed to do as a priest of Jesus Christ with regards the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Confession?
please.......
Look, I would rather err on the side of Father Newman's position, then on the side of time-server bishops who are a disgrace to themselves and the Church. They are worthless and are directly responsible for Catholics thinking they can vote for Abortion King with impunity. I will not contribute one red, cent to the USCCB or its causes. Tom
Nobody will convince anybody of anything if the former is so convinced that the latter is simply ignorant.
Argue the issues. Stop calling those who disagree with us names. Stop blaming bishops and priests. When bishops and priests are constantly blamed, it makes it look like the laity needs to be simply led by the nose, contributing to anti-Catholic stereotypes that we are a bunch of foolish stupid sheep.
"it would nonetheless be impossible to "to ascertain with any degree of certainty the sinfulness of the action of any particular voter" as many voters may or may not have been aware of Obama’s extreme stance on abortion."
I don't understand this line of thinking. If we followed this line of thinking priests couldn't preach about any sin at all (which is maybe what people want). No one can say that any action is a mortal sin in and of itself - only that it's grave matter. When priests preach about sin they're talking about grave matterA Any reasonable Catholic should know that if a priest teaches you must go to confession if you commit murder (or whatever sin he's teaching about), he means if you do it with the knowledge and free will to make yourself culpable.
Nuance is good for learning, but it's too often twisted as in the case of Faithful Citizenship. If Fr. Newman had used, for example, some type of invincible ignorance clause in his homily - it would have quickly gotten twisted around to be used for justifying all kinds of vincible ignorance. I think it's better for him to speak in the objective perspective from the pulpit and deal with the subjective perspective privately in the confessional if there are people who weren't culpable. At least that way they'll get good teaching about what constitutes mortal sin instead of the heterodox spin that lead so many Catholics to vote for Obama in the first place.
I am a member of this diocese. Yes, the diocesan spokesman spoke out of turn and without notifying his administrator that he was going to speak. This whole thing was an end run around the administrator. Whatever you think about the issue at hand, this is clearly NOT the way a media communications person is supposed to conduct his job.
I'm with Susan Peterson above, which is why I'm in the undecided camp and force to make a decision knowning what I know is required for mortal sin to be present, I would lean to vote No. The Priest is trying to teach the right thing but when it comes down to legalise only Christ knows the persons heart and mind and whether or not they are culpable. Assuming everyone heard the Priests teaching correctly then what he is saying is correct, but it still can't be done without the assumption. Thank God, God is the Judge.
Commenting by HaloScan
