The Holy Father's political views are being misunderstood

[IronLionZion]

Overzealous, hysterical DUers in GD are throwing out the nonsense that he thinks we are "evil" for supporting pro-choice Democrats, but that is false. He said that is evil if that specific issue is the ONLY reason you are supporting that candidate. It's perfectly OK with him if we look at a candidate as a whole and support him for his views on a lot of issues even if he is pro-choice. He is OK with us supporting Democrats and will likely carry on JPII's views against the death penalty, war, and corporate greed.


"He was an important player in the American dispute last year over the church's attitude toward Catholic politicians like Sen. John Kerry, who favor abortion rights. With one bishop saying he would deny Holy Communion to Kerry, Ratzinger helped guide the U.S. prelates' discussion of the matter. The cardinal said that while bishops ultimately could decide to withhold the sacrament, they should meet with, teach and warn politicians first. Ratzinger also said that voters would be guilty of "cooperating in evil" if they backed a candidate specifically because he or she supports abortion rights or euthanasia."
http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=1021705&tw=wn_wire_story

I disagree with his views on withholding the sacrament of communion obviously, but you have to admit his views are more reasonable than our own partisan Republican neo-con clergy. It's shameful the way they treated John Kerry but have no issue with the pro-death, anti-poor Republican "Catholics" like Rick Santorum.

And remember that he was very liberal back in the 1960's and became more of a doctrinal traditionalist after repeatedly defending his Catholic faith from the secular left-wing socialists.

Look, a lot of corporate media whores are spreading the meme that he is "conservative" but what the hell does that mean? :shrug: He's not evil like our corporate Republicans here in America. His views are not even close to George W. Bush's.

Remember that our last Pope not only transcended labels, he also openly, vocally, and repeatedly denounced President Bush's actions. As his right-hand man, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger had to have shared at least SOME of those beliefs, if not outright influencing them or even speaking through John Paul II.

Give the Pope a chance.

[Princess Turandot]

1. That letter, which people assumed Ratzinger wrote at JP II's direction..

since it came out not long after Bush asked the Vatican to endorse him, was poorly covered by the media. It was written in 9/04 I think. The gist of it was to have been delivered to all churches by their bishops, altho I don't know if that happened.What it said was that voting for a candidate only because they supported something the Church opposed, such as abortion, was a problem. It also however went on to say that if a Catholic balanced the moral equities of a candidate's views on several positions, including social justice & war etc, that voting for that candidate even if he was pro-choice was not a problem.

The letter was mentioned in the main DU forums on many occasions when JP II was accused of supporting Bush because of those asinine bishops who garnered so much attention. It didn't change many peoples' views.

[sandnsea]

2. June 04

Then a US Bishops document was issued based on that letter. Ratzinger then wrote another agreeing with the Bishops statement and adding the caveat of considering everything about voting for a pro-choice candidate for proportionate reasons. This is the best timeline I've seen. And it's written by a right winger who wanted the Vatican to say pro-choice politicians should be ex-communicated. This writer didn't come to the conclusion that Ratzinger said that, and would have liked to, so it's funny to me that liberals do.

http://www.christorchaos.com/NeverMindIWasRighttheFirstTime.html

[Princess Turandot]

4. That must have been my time line issue..

I recall reading an article abt the Ratzinger letter in WaPo in September or so, but it had been written much earlier & received no coverage at the time.

[JohnKleeb]

3. Thats what Ive been defending him on

He became more conservative aftering seeing students infleunced by far far leftists like Marx, I abhor that extreme just as much as I do the far right.

[DemBones DemBones]

5. Some people don't want to know the facts; it interferes with

their preconceived biases. This applies not only to prejudging Catholics but others as well, like Republicans, at least some of whom are not equipped with horns and a forked tail. I've always generally opposed the GOP -- and it's gotten worse in recent years -- but there have always been decent people who are Republicans. Don't say that in GD, though, 'cause someone is sure to take exception.

[UrbScotty]

7. I think it is sometimes forgotten that prejudice is a GOP value. (nt)

[CBHagman]

6. I'm bumping this thread because...

...I'm still finding misrepresentations of Benedict XVI in the general threads, such as Late Breaking News. :cry:

[Matilda]

8. Where should the line between politics and religion be drawn?

If the Church is going to take a stand against a pro-choice
candidate, should they also not have a moral obligation to take
an equally strong stand against a president who has taken his
country to war on a deliberately false pretext, and repeatedly
lied to his people about the results of his actions, not least
the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?

If they are not going to get involved on every issue that involves
lying and hypocrisy, then perhaps they should just butt out of
politics altogether.

But then, I believe there are times when the Church should be
involved, as the liberation theologists were in Latin America,
with good cause.

It's a serious issue, and one I've often thought about, and I do
think it has to be all or nothing, but I'm not sure which.

[CBHagman]

12. To be fair, some Catholics, including clergy and the Vatican...

...have been quite vocal about opposing the war in Iraq, criticizing capitalism, and the like. If you go to an antiwar march or vigil, you're sure to see some members of the clergy (a friend of mine wore his Franciscan habit to Lafayette Park in protesting against the first Gulf War). And of course you'll find nuns on the front lines of social justice issues of all kinds, such as advising and assisting immigrants, or committing civil disobedience at a weapons site.

This is the sort of thing that doesn't draw the headlines, generally speaking, although you will find coverage of it in the mainstream press (for example, yesterday's NY Times article about a nun working with illegal immigrants).

As for Benedict XVI, what's not commonly known is what a pacifist he is. I've read in more than one place that he isn't actually sure there is such a thing as a just war. I'll have to dig around for the articles (one turned up in Wikipedia) and links.

Following the death of John Paul II, there were moments when some in the media bent over backwards to try to associate George W. Bush with the legacy of the late pope.

Pardon me. :puke: That's better.

Jim VandeHei of The Washington Post, for example, wrote no fewer than three articles touting Bush's use of the phrase "culture of life" and linking him to John Paul II. To be fair, the Post also mentioned John Paul II's criticism of capitalism and the war in Iraq, but VandeHei was pretty egregious, in my book. No politician owns the church, and no politician owns the legacy of a pope. I don't view any Kennedy, for example, as the ultimate Catholic politician, any more than I think Hatch or Reid would be the ultimate Mormon politician.

The media is so selective in its focus, anyway. They salivate on cue like some variation on the Pavlovian dog when Bush intones (or squawks) the phrase "culture of life." It's as though they have no moral or spiritual imagination. They'll see evil in getting fat or being unchaste, but won't see evil in propping up a dictator or lying about trading arms for hostages.

[meow2u3]

9. Papa Bene effectively tells Catholics they can't be single-issue...

..pro-choice voters. In other words, you can vote for a pro-choice candidate despite his/her views on abortion, provided the opposition candidate will likely do more damage to the country; but you can't vote for the pro-choice guy or gal because of their pro-choice stand. Catholics can't be single-issue pro-choice voters. If only he could chew out Republicans for being pro-torture; that would be a single standard, in my book.

[Rich Hunt]

10. that's funny...

Because I actually agree with him - not with his views on abortion, but I don't think you should vote for one candidate or another based on one issue alone. :)

[Matilda]

11. While I am pro-choice,

and think that there are definitely circumstances where abortion is
a better or safer option than a birth, I can agree with the Church's
stand against abortion, provided they maintain a consistent anti-
war and anti-death penalty stand as well.

As long as they remain consistent, I can at least understand where
they're coming from.

[Beer Snob-50]

14. I cauld not agree more

Our current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave counts on christians (small c) voting for single issues (abortion) because if they look long and hard at his "Christian" record, they would see a poor example of someone who claims to follow Christ.

[meow2u3]

13. I can say the same thing in two sentences

It's OK for us to support pro-choice, yet otherwise morally acceptable candidates despite their support of legal abortion.

It's not Ok to back a pro-choice candidate because they want to keep abortion legal.

[JNelson6563]

15. One thing you must understand friend

is that in order for a "new & improved" version of anything to achieve legitimacy, the first thing they must do is to try to discredit the existing group(s).

Obviously the many branches of Christianity have been at it a long time and yet they are still lacking the security to focus on positive efforts, must still bash Catholicism. Plus the RCC has a handy target some relgions don't have, a clear cut leader. Want to scatter the flock? Strike at the shepherd.

It's an age old game that is still being played by the same tired old rules. Don't let it get to you. It will go on as long as there is a Catholic church. Nevermind RCC critics, let people judge you by your deeds. In time, once the Pope has held office for some time, he too will be judged so, at least by the fair-minded.

Cheers-
Julie--an atheist who's sypmathetic to Catholics :toast:

[elshiva]

16. You are most welcome here, Julie!

:toast: Understanding of others is a great virtue.

[JNelson6563]

18. Thank you Elshiva

I was a Catholic for many years. I understand your POV very well and am quite sympathetic. I am having trouble understanding other views though, such as those of the neo-cons. ;-)

Cheers,
Julie

[elshiva]

19. As an Episcopalian, I try to understand your POV as an atheist, too.

We are in this together really!

[tmorelli415]

17. "This president has exploited the tragedy of abortion ..."

Regarding the free exercise of one's conscience:

"By its interventions in this area, the Church’s Magisterium does not wish to exercise political power or eliminate the freedom of opinion of Catholics regarding contingent questions. Instead, it intends – as is its proper function – to instruct and illuminate the consciences of the faithful, particularly those involved in political life, so that their actions may always serve the integral promotion of the human person and the common good. The social doctrine of the Church is not an intrusion into the government of individual countries. It is a question of the lay Catholic's duty to be morally coherent, found within one’s conscience, which is one and indivisible."

—Doctrinal Note on some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Nov 2002.

* * *

From Catholic Democrats web site regarding the Republican record on abortion:

"Hiding until after the election the state-by-state surveillance data on abortion, with data now showing that under Mr. Bush the long decline in abortion rates has come to an end. The nomination of Judge John Roberts Jr to take Sandra O'Conner's place on the Supreme Court is sure to launch the wrong debate about whether Roe v Wade will be overturned. This president has exploited the tragedy of abortion to further polarize our society on this issue, and Catholics in particular, while featuring Catholic speakers at his Convention (Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Pataki, Rudolph Giuliani) whose abortion views were virtually indistinguishable from Senator John Kerry's. Control of the White House, and the Congress, and the Supreme Court, but the Republicans have done nothing to prevent abortion in America."

* * *

More facts on the results of Bush Administration policy regarding abortion:

http://www.catholicdemocrats.net/on_abortion.php">Lear more: The Bush 'moral scorecard' on abortion from Catholic Democrats.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm">Learn more: The rate of teenage abortions rose under the Bush Administration for the first time in many years.
http://www.courier-journal.com/cjextra/editorials/2004/10/11/oped-stassen1011-5709.html">Read more: Bush Administration social policy has led to an increase in the number of abortions in the United States.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5309a1.htm">Learn more: Analysis by Centers for Disease Control concludes that teenage abortion rates under Bush have risen significantly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/10/opinion/10Power.html?ex=1122696000&en=315723db64644d13&ei=5070&oref=login">Learn more: The world is filled with more violence and killing under Bush and the Republicans.

[tmorelli415]

20. Ratzinger on Political Support & Holy Eucharist from June 2004 - GOOD INFO

In a letter he offered to the U.S. bishops as a "fraternal service," just prior to their June 2004 meeting, intended to clarify the question of a Catholic's worthiness to receive Eucharist, here is what Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) wrote:

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation with evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Eucharist, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stance on abortion or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share the candidate's stance in favor of abortion 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."

"Formal cooperation with evil" is a technical phrase, underscoring that the pro-abortion Catholic voter, by embracing the abortion license and furthering it, is thereby cooperating in the death of innocents, which is always gravely evil. Pro-life Catholic voters who vote for pro-abortion candidates despite the candidates' pro-abortion stance do not deliberately advance the death of innocents through abortion (thus "remote material cooperation").

But the crucial questions remain: When is this morally justifiable? What are the "proportionate reasons" that would lead a pro-life voter to conclude that a pro-abortion candidate's unacceptable position on the life issues can, in effect, be bracketed?

In his letter, Cardinal Ratzinger also wrote:

"Not all moral issues have the same weight as abortion and euthanasia.... There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion, even among Catholics, about waging war or applying the death penalty, but not, however, with regard to abortion and euthanasia."