WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 13, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and U.S. bishops are "very much in harmony" in regard to the Church's position on the issue of pro-abortion Catholic politicians' access to Communion.
Who are you and what have you done with Cardinal Ratzinger?
Jimmy Aikin has an interesting take
http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/07/mccarrick_ratzi.html
Perhaps it's just that English isn't Cdl. Ratzinger's first language.
Sal,
Greetings,
Maybe I missed it (as I live in Spain), but has there been much discussion about the last part of Cardinal Ratzingerīs (of whom I am a fan) letter which was addressed to voters. And more specifically, how are we to take that? Iīve searched but I cannot find a rundown definitive definition if this statement in fact "frees" Democrat voters to vote for Kerry, in the sense that there are valid "other" issues that would allow such a vote.
And let me just say, clearly right here, Iīm not looking for a loophole. I am also a fairly new convert to the RC (in 2002), and Iīve struggled with this voting issue, and have said I will vote in line with Church teaching.
In other words, I want to make my voting consistent with my faith, and not based on my own past prejudices, etc. I admit I used to be pretty liberal. Things have changed. Okay, a lot has changed. If uīve read my blog, I trust u can recognize that.
So my question is, playing a bit of a devilīs advocate here, and asking u do so as well, after reading that last bit of Cardinal Ratzingerīs letter, is this saying Catholic Democratīs can vote their conscience, and if so under what circumstances could they vote for Kerry.
I trust u understand where Iīm coming from, Iīm not seeking controversy, nor a loophole. I want to be faithful to the Church, and I will be.
By the way, if I havenīt said it before, I read this site everyday.
Paz
Robert Duncan
Sadly, Cardinal Ratzinger's letter is not surprising. He and John Paul place very high, too high, priority on the ecclesiology of communion. For them, the fact that each bishop is the primary icon of Christ for his diocese, and governs with a real participation in Christ's priestly, kingly, and teaching offices, means that Rome almost never should intervene in the workings of a local diocese or national bishops' conference.
However, this issue presents a clear case of where the bishop's governing office requires him to put the common good, above the tender mental processes of the individual politician. Individual conscience, as Vatican II and every Magisterial document on the topic since then explain, in no way justifies believing untruth or committing sin. Conscience is supposed to be formed according to a Catholic vision of reality--the mysteries or doctrines of faith, and the natural moral law which is available to our minds.
Ratzginer's original letter in June explained that bishops have an obligation to instruct pro-abortion politicians in their dioceses of the truth about abortion. If the politician then continues supporting legal abortion, he *is* to be denied Communion.
But the bishops know that as long as they make no effort to personally instruct a politician, they can say, oh, I can't judge his conscience. But here the bishop fails to do his job. No bishop is justified to say that the common good does not matter more than the tender agonizing of a politician about "imposing his religion" on other people. The bishop is *obligated* to instruct his politicians, and cut off Communion if they persist in advocating evil.
But the bishops won't do that. And they know that Rome will blink, and has, as Rome has so many times in the past.
"Conscience is supposed to be formed according to a Catholic vision of reality--the mysteries or doctrines of faith, and the natural moral law which is available to our minds."
Let me clarify this statement for Robert and any other readers who might not be newer to viewing the world with a Catholic view of human knowledge.
Human reason is capable of knowing that we are spiritual embodied beings made for virtue, the only way we can be happy. Thus, we can know by the light of reason--that is, a light by which we can know truth--the natural moral law. Unless we act in accordance with the natural moral law, we willl not do or be good, and cannot be truly happy. We can try to convince ourselves that doing evil is good, but in the end it can't make us happy.
But God reveals Himself to us in history, first to the OT Jews and then to all of us in Christ. He accomodates his Divine mysteries to our minds by speaking them to us in a Divine man: Jesus Christ. So the mysteries of faith, by grace through Christ, are available to our minds too. We just can't know God, who is more excellent than our created minds, in his being. But we can know natural objects which are not more excellent than our own minds. In Christ we can know revealed truths, mysteries about God--who He is as the Holy Trinity.
Christ reveals to us that we can't be good on our own, even if we do the natural moral law, because of the stain of original sin. (We'll be happier, we just can't be saved). He redeems us from sin through baptism and faith, and empowers us by the Holy Spirit to know God our Father. He gives us the ability to not only live the natural moral law, but by our participation in His nature by baptism, the ability to be saved, and for our good actions to *contribute* to our sanctification and salvation.
Beregond,
Greetings,
Thanks for the note. Yes, I am aware that we as Catholics need to have "well-formed consciences," and indeed thatīs something that Iīm working toward with the aid of my spiritual director, etc.
But the question that I have more revolves around the interpretation of the graph relating to voters, and which seems like it goes against previous comments, statements by some bishops that a person voting for Kerry would in fact be excommunicated, by cooperating with evil. Ratzingerīs statement seems to tone that down, and hence my question. Again, my question isnīt to be taken as seeking a loophole. And apologies if this has been answered, but as I live in Spain I some times miss out on things.
Paz
I know of no overriding political position held by Mr. Kerry that would make voting for him a moral choice for a Catholic. Many of the issues promoted by some individuals as reasons to vote for him, and which they would hold might in some sense override Kerry's consistent anti-life position, are in fact contrary to the principle of subsidiarity in the political order. I recommend reading Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter "Centesimus Annus," and in particular focusing on part 5 (the "State and Culture"), nos. 48 and 49. As the Pope points out in that document, the social welfare state itself is based on a faulty understanding of the powers of the state in relation to society. As a consequence, I see nothing in Kerry's various political positions in reference to the proper ordering of society that would lessen the evil caused by his constant and vociferous promotion of the destruction of innocent human life.
God bless,
Todd