The headline says it all: “Catholic Voters Given Leeway on Abortion Rights Issue”. The problem is that the headline is a lie. The Washington Post‘s story hangs on Archbishop Raymond Burke’s supposed reversal of his strong statement earlier this summer that a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion politician. But that’s a lie too. According to reliable sources, Archbishop Burke was approached by a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch for a story on Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter to the Cardinal Theodore McCarrick. Burke explained Ratzinger’s footnote on “proportional reasons” that might allow someone to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, but he did not reverse himself.
In fact, given the headline above, even that story makes it clear that Burke said that it’s difficult to imagine a situation in which such proportionate reasons might exist. Here’s one situation: You have a pro-life candidate who, nevertheless wants to put Jews in concentration camps. His opponent is pro-abortion, but opposes persecution of the Jews. It would be permissible to vote for the latter in that case. But the fact that you have to go to such lengths to find a proportionate reason shows the absurdity of even mentioning. In fact, I think it was imprudent to even bring up the exception in the first place.
We have become a people of “exceptionalism.” Over the past 30 years we have learned to live by exceptions. They say that abortion should remain legal and widely available because of the tiny, tiny number of women who are raped and become pregnant. We are told that partial-birth abortion should remain legal because of the tiny, tiny chance that a woman might need it or endanger her health. We makes excuses for birth control, divorce, promiscuity, and so on. It’s gotten to the point that anytime there’s an exception or excuse made, the exception becomes the rule. Give an inch and they’ll take the mile. It’s the same here. An obscure exemption is identified; so obscure that it’s only mentioned in a footnote to Ratzinger’s letter. But now it’s become the rule.
And why has this gotten the national front-page play it has? You only have to look at where this story is appearing: The Washington Post. Who was the cardinal who was publicly embarrassed because he said that Cardinal Ratzinger said that it’s up to individual bishops to decide whether to deny Communion to pro-abortion politicians when Ratzinger really said the bishop “must” deny it? Whose archdiocese does the Washington Post reside in? It doesn’t take a genius to connect the dots.
We have become a people of l not. That is a proportional reason.
Check out Jimmy Akin’s blog. He just put the smackdown on the Fr. Greeley’s of the world regarding “proportionate reasons.”
Check out Jimmy Akin’s blog. He just put the smackdown on the Fr. Greeley’s of the world regarding “proportionate reasons.”
Damian,
“I really don
Great record for the Republicans….again, the President has no real power.
It may be pre-eminent, but is not realistic to say it is the sole defining issue.
Cam
“Are you just not bothering to read what I write?”
Well, isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black. I most certainly do read what you write….I quote it all the time. The problem is that you are so blind to the real issue that you can’t see the forest for the trees.
There is more to this than saying no. There is the idea of salvation. Archbishop Burke has clarified his position. It is clear (crystal) that it is in line with what I have been saying all along.
“I wholeheartedly agree with Canon 915. There is nothing in that statement that I disagree with. However, I will stand with Bishop Sheridan in saying that he cannot know what is in a personment_author>
michigancatholic@hotmail.com
http://www.michigancatholic.blogspot.com
66.255.204.12
2004-09-10 07:58:50
2004-09-10 11:58:50
“Bishop Sheridan says, /wp:comment_author>
damian_duarte@yahoo.com
204.65.61.152
2004-09-09 13:58:30
2004-09-09 17:58:30
I really don’t understand what is so difficult for some people to understand regarding “proportionate reasons.” Bush is not fully pro-life but he is much more so than Kerry. Therefore, I will reluctantly be voting for a person who is still in some instances pro-abortion for the reason that he will try to limit abortion and Kerry will not. That is a proportional reason.
That is the issue. People who really want to do something wrong, (and don’t see why they can’t and fight for it politically) will EXCUSE others who are doing the same thing thinking it might do their cause some good or cause them to “get off the hook.”
As I have said, we must be Catholics in America, but we mustn false promise to the masses that they can have their cake and eat it too. That’s the forest – the other issue are the individual trees. A murderous forest that has SOME good trees in it is still rotten .
Argh…….abortion IS the defining issue as it is the murderous one that holds out false promise to the masses that they can have their cake and eat it too. That’s the forest – the other issue are the individual trees. A murderous forest that has SOME good trees in it is still rotten .
I’m not defending past appointments. I’m saying that you’re to say that a President doesn’t have any real control over abortion in this country. If he appoints more justices like Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia we have a better chance to stop abortion (and gay marriage and a host of other matters that liberals are trying to pass using activist judges).
Some appointments by Reagan and Bush 41 were disappointments. Every appointment by Clinton has been and every possible appointment by Kerry will be. Guaranteed. I’d rather take my chances with Bush. A slim chance is better than none.
It may be pre-eminent, but is not realistic to say it is the sole defining issue.
The magnitude of abortion, euthanasia, manipulation of unborn life, gay marriage, and so on are such that they outweigh the other considerations. The Pope and Ratzinger have said so themselves.
Nan,
I don’t disagree that abortion is murder…however, it is not the only important issue that faces this country in this election. As a Catholic, I think that abortion is pre-eminent, but there are a great many others who don’t hold that opinion. President Bush is one of them, btw; so is the RNC.
Is it sad, yes, but it is just a tree in the great forest of the United States. We have many other things that are important on a scale near abortion….the economy, homeland security, employment and there are others.
All things being equal, I would vote for Bush, because he is LESS pro-abort than Kerry. I am not happy about this decision I have to make, but nevertheless, I will do it.
I support President Bush on most issues, but I disagree wholeheartedly with him on his pro-life stance. It is not nearly a strong enough stance.
————-
Dom,
The magnitude of abortion, euthanasia, manipulation of unborn life, gay marriage, and so on are such that they outweigh the other considerations.
That is fine for those of us who are Catholic. But what about Lutherans, Baptists, Muslims, and Jews?
We need to convince them. We can’t do it from a Catholic position, because it is doesn’t matter to them what the Pope says. So, until we can prove that to others, it is pre-eminent, but it is not the only issue. It is not the sole defining issue. For most, abortion is a second-tier issue. THAT is my point.
However, we are off topic. We agree on what Ratzinger, Burke et al say. We are on the same page. We agree that those who “formally” participate should not receive Holy Communion. We agree that the vast majority at best, participate from a “remote material” position, therefore cannot be denied Holy Communion.
Cam