Catholic Answers Suing The Irs

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1888062' date='Jun 10 2009, 07:09 PM']Why? Not Obama-friendly enough for your tastes?[/quote]
Where did I say anything about Obama? Your comment could easily be interpreted as being highly offensive. I'm going to assume you did not intent offense, though.

I said I thought the publication was not nuanced enough to truly help a serious Catholic voter.

Politics and political participation is not a black-and-white undertaking, and I found the CA voting guide to be overly simplistic in its presentation of Catholic doctrine as it pertains to political life. I think it eliminates or distorts some substantial considerations Catholics should make in the decision-making process, both in terms of issues which should be considered and the principles by which we make political decisions.


[quote name='Brother Vinny' post='1888114' date='Jun 10 2009, 07:44 PM']Dang, there sure is a lot of cynicism on this thread. It was Keating's [i]Catholicism and Fundamentalism[/i] that first made me see not only that Catholic theology was tenable, but that it was better and more defensible than any other Christian worldview I'd experienced.

People who smirk at Keating, even with his org's heavy-handed pleas for donations, tend to forget that the work he's doing is good, and that he was doing Catholic apologetics before Catholic apologetics was cool.[/quote]
A person can do quality apologetics work without resorting to the tactics Keating & Co. have utilized.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1888538' date='Jun 11 2009, 03:24 PM']Where did I say anything about Obama? Your comment could easily be interpreted as being highly offensive. I'm going to assume you did not intent offense, though.

I said I thought the publication was not nuanced enough to truly help a serious Catholic voter.

Politics and political participation is not a black-and-white undertaking, and I found the CA voting guide to be overly simplistic in its presentation of Catholic doctrine as it pertains to political life. I think it eliminates or distorts some substantial considerations Catholics should make in the decision-making process, both in terms of issues which should be considered and the principles by which we make political decisions.[/quote]
Sorry, I was in a sort of snappy, sarcastic mood when I made that comment. I didn't [i]think[/i] you voted for Obama, which is why I found your comments all the more puzzling.

I had seen the CA voter's guide back when it came out, and found nothing particularly problematic about it, and I just looked it up online, and again found it quite solid.

[url="http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1p.pdf"]http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-C...-English-1p.pdf[/url]

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain what you think was "eliminated" or "distorted" in that pamphlet. In fact, I thought it did quite well for a 16-page pamphlet, which by its very nature is not going to be able to cover [i]everything[/i] that might possibly pertain to the subject. I thought calling the voter's guide "a joke" quite harsh and uncalled for.

You'll have to keep in mind also that this is a pamphlet intended as a reference which can be read and understood by the average joe six-pack Catholic voter, not just by someone with an advanced degree in theology. A certain Keep It Simple Stupid presentation is required. If someone is looking to truly go in depth into Catholic moral theology, political philosophy, etc., he can go read a full-length scholarly book on the topic, rather than just stick to a 16-page pamphlet.

In any case, I thought the booklet did well in making clear the primacy of the five non-negotiables, something which is sadly either not known or blatantly ignored by many (if not most) self-proclaimed American Catholics.
The bottom line is that a Catholic [i]cannot[/i] in good conscience vote for a political candidate who blatantly supports abortion or any of the other intrinsic moral evils listed in the pamphlet (as has every major Democratic presidential candidate during our lifetime).
I think the pamphlet makes this quite clear, and is right to do so.
The simple fact is that most voters are simply not capable of truly nuanced thought on these moral issues, but use all kinds of "nuanced" logical contortions to justify voting for blatantly pro-abortion candidates. I get sick at how many "Catholics" justify voting for pro-abortion candidates simply because they promise to throw more money at "the economy" or what have you. Let's face it; this is a major problem, and if every Catholic voter really voted keeping the non-negotiable moral issues first, our country wouldn't be in the mess it's in.
However, on phatmass, the outrage isn't directed at this problem, but instead at the Catholic Answers voting guide which is at least trying to help correct this problem.


[quote]A person can do quality apologetics work without resorting to the tactics Keating & Co. have utilized.[/quote]
What tactics? Fundraising?

I was becoming quite frustrating that many Catholics on this site (not singling you out, I've actually enjoyed most of your recent posts) seem extremely eager and quick to bash any Catholic person or organization who, however imperfect, are at least speaking out publicly on behalf of life and Catholic morality, while they often, on the other hand, seem always inclined to give liberal politicians and such the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry, but I find this general attitude on here troubling and frustrating.

Edited June 11, 2009 by Socrates

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1888579' date='Jun 11 2009, 04:08 PM']I was becoming quite frustrating that many Catholics on this site (not singling you out, I've actually enjoyed most of your recent posts) seem extremely eager and quick to bash any Catholic person or organization who, however imperfect, are at least speaking out publicly on behalf of life and Catholic morality, while they often, on the other hand, seem always inclined to give liberal politicians and such the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry, but I find this general attitude on here troubling and frustrating.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
? i must be missing those posts and/or posters.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1888682' date='Jun 11 2009, 09:34 PM']+J.M.J.+
? i must be missing those posts and/or posters.[/quote]
You must not spend much time on Phatmass. Good for you.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1888708' date='Jun 11 2009, 07:50 PM']You must not spend much time on Phatmass. Good for you.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
well, i just came back from a week off and i don't spend time on the debate table much. but as a mod, i'm still watchful of posts. maybe i just don't see what you see?

[Sojourner]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1888579' date='Jun 11 2009, 04:08 PM']Sorry, I was in a sort of snappy, sarcastic mood when I made that comment. I didn't [i]think[/i] you voted for Obama, which is why I found your comments all the more puzzling.

I had seen the CA voter's guide back when it came out, and found nothing particularly problematic about it, and I just looked it up online, and again found it quite solid.

[url="http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1p.pdf"]http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-C...-English-1p.pdf[/url]

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain what you think was "eliminated" or "distorted" in that pamphlet. In fact, I thought it did quite well for a 16-page pamphlet, which by its very nature is not going to be able to cover [i]everything[/i] that might possibly pertain to the subject. I thought calling the voter's guide "a joke" quite harsh and uncalled for.

You'll have to keep in mind also that this is a pamphlet intended as a reference which can be read and understood by the average joe six-pack Catholic voter, not just by someone with an advanced degree in theology. A certain Keep It Simple Stupid presentation is required. If someone is looking to truly go in depth into Catholic moral theology, political philosophy, etc., he can go read a full-length scholarly book on the topic, rather than just stick to a 16-page pamphlet.

In any case, I thought the booklet did well in making clear the primacy of the five non-negotiables, something which is sadly either not known or blatantly ignored by many (if not most) self-proclaimed American Catholics.
The bottom line is that a Catholic [i]cannot[/i] in good conscience vote for a political candidate who blatantly supports abortion or any of the other intrinsic moral evils listed in the pamphlet (as has every major Democratic presidential candidate during our lifetime).
I think the pamphlet makes this quite clear, and is right to do so.
The simple fact is that most voters are simply not capable of truly nuanced thought on these moral issues, but use all kinds of "nuanced" logical contortions to justify voting for blatantly pro-abortion candidates. I get sick at how many "Catholics" justify voting for pro-abortion candidates simply because they promise to throw more money at "the economy" or what have you. Let's face it; this is a major problem, and if every Catholic voter really voted keeping the non-negotiable moral issues first, our country wouldn't be in the mess it's in.
However, on phatmass, the outrage isn't directed at this problem, but instead at the Catholic Answers voting guide which is at least trying to help correct this problem.[/quote]
Well, I'm comparing the CA guide to the statement issued in 2008 by the USCCB. And since I know you are not a fan of the USCCB, I just want to note for the record that [url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf"]Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship[/url] was issued with [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10979"]near unanimous approval[/url] by the bishops. Some of them may be liberal, but only three bishops withheld assent. That means there MUST have been some agreement with the document from bishops you would respect.

I'll briefly address the concerns I had with the CA guide:
1) The five "non-negotiables" are motivated not a little by political judgment, even though they claim to be non-partisan. Consider, for example, the issue of torture. Torture has been an ongoing political issue for many years, and there is clear Catholic teaching on this topic that torture is a serious offense against human dignity. But this didn't make the list for CA, even though by the 2006 revision torture had been a significant part of the political conversation for at least two years. (Abu Graib was in 2004). [url="http://www.caaction.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=66"]CA states[/url] that the criteria for choosing these issues are that they be "instrinsically evil" and "currently debated in U.S. politics." How does torture not fit this criteria? Even things like just war, racism, genocide, and so on, don't make the list. Why not?

The USCCB has a broader discussion of intrinsic evil, and rather than limiting the discussion to five areas the bishops address broader principles that allow for more flexible application in a wider range of situations. And, the idea that something is "intrinsically evil" is not the end of the analysis in the bishop's work. We are called to appropriately prioritize but it is not a black-and-white analysis like the CA guide purports. Instead, the process of making a political decision involves exercising wisdom and discernment on the individual's appropriate response in the moral, social, and political fronts.

2) The CA guide effectively shuts off any sort of actual thought or reflection for Catholics on these issues. Candidates either agree or they don't. There is no room for discussion. While these judgments make it "easy" for Catholics to know what to do, it doesn't do much in the way of helping people be able to exercise judgment on their own. Human beings are not automatons, and the CA guide treats Catholics like they should be in lockstep on the non-negotiable issues. The bishops have a more nuanced approach. Catholics should first form their consciences according to Church teaching, then exercise prudence in making political judgments. In my view, the bishops treat Catholics like human beings. Keating & Co. do not.

The political arena really does not allow for such rigid thinking as the CA guide implies, in part because political actions take place on a deeply imperfect stage. Politics is not just about [i]what [/i]is wrong but [i]how to fix[/i] what is wrong. We can and should agree that abortion is wrong. And, we can also agree that we're probably not going to fix the problem by outlawing abortion anytime in the near future. So how to fix the problem? CA offers no answers, other than "don't vote pro-choice." The bishops, however, manage to communicate that there can be a legitimate diversity of opinion about what is the best way to reduce the number of abortions. We can, as well-formed and prudent Catholics, legitimately disagree about the best way to do this, and there is room for different approaches.

The bishops don't say that Catholics can disagree about whether life and human dignity issues are wrong, but rather that there is another step in the political analysis -- the exercise of prudential judgment in determining which strategies will work best in the current climate. This is an important distinction that CA completely misses.

3) Along the same lines as the previous point, I think CA misinterprets the concept of cooperation with evil. They find that "to the greatest extent possible, Catholics must avoid
voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil." The question, according to the CA, is the candidate's intent.

Not so, say the bishops. "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in
favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, [b]if the voter’s intent[/b] is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.” Emphasis mine. They further note that a “voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an
intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.” This is important, because it frees us from being single-issue or single-agenda voters. I personally feel pretty good siding with 97.4% of the U.S. bishops on this one, as opposed to with Keating & Co.

Frankly, I think the argument that this was intended for the average Joe six-pack is a copout. Citizenship is a rare privilege that we should treasure, and in this instance dumbing it down means people are not being properly formed and not realizing the full potential they have as human persons.

I, for one, think we could all stand to exercise well-formed prudence a little more often.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1888579' date='Jun 11 2009, 04:08 PM']What tactics? Fundraising?

I was becoming quite frustrating that many Catholics on this site (not singling you out, I've actually enjoyed most of your recent posts) seem extremely eager and quick to bash any Catholic person or organization who, however imperfect, are at least speaking out publicly on behalf of life and Catholic morality, while they often, on the other hand, seem always inclined to give liberal politicians and such the benefit of the doubt.

Sorry, but I find this general attitude on here troubling and frustrating.[/quote]
Actually, I was referring to the constant "We're on the verge of closing our doors" appeals. I get e-mails and letters frequently from various Catholic organizations (because we give money to solid Catholic organizations) and CA is one that strikes me as being particularly manipulative in its fundraising tactics. It's the same kind of feeling I get going by stores that are perpetually going out of business and having "liquidation sales." That's an appeal that works once, but CA uses it over and over. It has gotten old, and doesn't inspire much in the way of confidence for potential donors.

I don't have any comment about the remainder of your post, since I haven't noticed such a general tone.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1888782' date='Jun 11 2009, 11:28 PM']Well, I'm comparing the CA guide to the statement issued in 2008 by the USCCB. And since I know you are not a fan of the USCCB, I just want to note for the record that [url="http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf"]Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship[/url] was issued with [url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=10979"]near unanimous approval[/url] by the bishops. Some of them may be liberal, but only three bishops withheld assent. That means there MUST have been some agreement with the document from bishops you would respect.

I'll briefly address the concerns I had with the CA guide:
1) The five "non-negotiables" are motivated not a little by political judgment, even though they claim to be non-partisan. Consider, for example, the issue of torture. Torture has been an ongoing political issue for many years, and there is clear Catholic teaching on this topic that torture is a serious offense against human dignity. But this didn't make the list for CA, even though by the 2006 revision torture had been a significant part of the political conversation for at least two years. (Abu Graib was in 2004). [url="http://www.caaction.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=66"]CA states[/url] that the criteria for choosing these issues are that they be "instrinsically evil" and "currently debated in U.S. politics." How does torture not fit this criteria? Even things like just war, racism, genocide, and so on, don't make the list. Why not?[/quote]
First of all, that's wonderful that you are gifted with the ability to read the inner motivations of the authors of the CA voter's guide. And, incidentally, I'd say you're rather naive if you think the USCCB is above and beyond all political considerations itself.

Secondly, I've now read both the CA voter's guide and the USCCB document you linked to, and I did not find them so much opposed to one another as you did (nor do I think the voter's guide was intended to be in opposition to the USCCB document, which was lengthier, and thus had room to cover more material).

I think you'd do well to read the last three pages of the CA guide ("Appendix") before slamming it, as these pages cover most of the objections you have. These pages do mention war, the death penalty, and genocide.

Even the USCCB document says that abortion and euthanasia are at the top of the list in terms of moral priority, and that not all moral issues carry the same weight.
Torture may indeed be an intrinsic moral evil, but roughing up terrorists and such is definitely a lesser evil than the deliberate slaughter of innocent babies. Thus it can never take priority over abortion as a life issue.
And I don't think anyone (left, right, or center) is publicly advocating genocide (as the CA guide notes on pg. 16), so this is not a current political issue. If there were an anti-abortion candidate advocating slaughtering the Jews or liquidating the Kulacs, obviously that would be an issue, but that is simply not the case (outside the bad acid trips of some far-leftists). I would in fact argue that abortion itself is a form of genocide, but maybe that's another debate.
Likewise, no serious candidate was advocating a return to slavery or Jim Crow laws (goofy leftist hysteria to the contrary). And even those evils are less than that of the slaughter of the innocents.

[quote]The USCCB has a broader discussion of intrinsic evil, and rather than limiting the discussion to five areas the bishops address broader principles that allow for more flexible application in a wider range of situations. And, the idea that something is "intrinsically evil" is not the end of the analysis in the bishop's work. We are called to appropriately prioritize but it is not a black-and-white analysis like the CA guide purports. Instead, the process of making a political decision involves exercising wisdom and discernment on the individual's appropriate response in the moral, social, and political fronts.

2) The CA guide effectively shuts off any sort of actual thought or reflection for Catholics on these issues. Candidates either agree or they don't. There is no room for discussion. While these judgments make it "easy" for Catholics to know what to do, it doesn't do much in the way of helping people be able to exercise judgment on their own. Human beings are not automatons, and the CA guide treats Catholics like they should be in lockstep on the non-negotiable issues. The bishops have a more nuanced approach. Catholics should first form their consciences according to Church teaching, then exercise prudence in making political judgments. In my view, the bishops treat Catholics like human beings. Keating & Co. do not.[/quote]
Quite frankly, I'm beginning to doubt you read the whole CA pamphlet, as what you are describing simply does not match what I read and linked to. It doesn't "shut off rational thought" anymore than the USCCB document does. In fact, it urges voters to make their voting choice on conscience based on Catholic moral teaching, rather than political and media influence.
Nor does it instruct readers what candidate or party to vote for, but gives a list of moral principles.
The truth is some issues are in fact "easy," and its liberals who try to complicate them by endlessly finding "nuance" and loopholes to justify voting for politicians whose policies directly violate Catholic moral teaching.

[quote]The political arena really does not allow for such rigid thinking as the CA guide implies, in part because political actions take place on a deeply imperfect stage. Politics is not just about [i]what [/i]is wrong but [i]how to fix[/i] what is wrong. We can and should agree that abortion is wrong. And, we can also agree that we're probably not going to fix the problem by outlawing abortion anytime in the near future. So how to fix the problem? CA offers no answers, other than "don't vote pro-choice." The bishops, however, manage to communicate that there can be a legitimate diversity of opinion about what is the best way to reduce the number of abortions. We can, as well-formed and prudent Catholics, legitimately disagree about the best way to do this, and there is room for different approaches.

The bishops don't say that Catholics can disagree about whether life and human dignity issues are wrong, but rather that there is another step in the political analysis -- the exercise of prudential judgment in determining which strategies will work best in the current climate. This is an important distinction that CA completely misses.[/quote]
The CA pamphlet is a [i]voting[/i] guide; it's not within its scope to give a complete list of solutions to fixing the problem of abortion.

However, it should go without saying that voting for "pro-choice" politicians who directly support the evil of abortion, who consistently oppose any and all legal limitations on abortion, who support increased funding of abortion with our tax dollars, and who (in the case of presidential candidates) will appoint justices who will do all they can to perpetuate abortion-on-demand, will not "fix the problem" of abortion, but make it worse.

The old liberal "pro-choice" song-and-dance of "wanting reduce abortions" while at teh same time supporting abortion with tax dollars and opposing any legal restrictions on abortion is pure hog tripe, and Catholic voters should never buy into it.

I cannot think of one single reason to justify voting for a blatantly pro-abortion political candidate in this country.
And before I'm accused of being a Republican lemming, I'll add that this applies just as much to "pro-choice" Republicans like Giuliani and Ah-nold as it does to Democrats.


[quote]3) Along the same lines as the previous point, I think CA misinterprets the concept of cooperation with evil. They find that "to the greatest extent possible, Catholics must avoid
voting for any candidate who intends to support programs or laws that are intrinsically evil." The question, according to the CA, is the candidate's intent.

Not so, say the bishops. "A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in
favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, [b]if the voter’s intent[/b] is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.” Emphasis mine. They further note that a “voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an
intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.” This is important, because it frees us from being single-issue or single-agenda voters. I personally feel pretty good siding with 97.4% of the U.S. bishops on this one, as opposed to with Keating & Co.[/quote]
Before we're so quick to condemn "Keating & Co.," you may want to read this (incidentally also quoted in the CA voting guide):[quote]3. [b]Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.[/b][/quote]Obviously written by some lackey of the GOP, right?
Actually it's from Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the CDF, before he became Pope.

Abortion and euthanasia take precedence over other issues at the moral level.

He goes on to say:[quote][N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted [b]in the presence of proportionate reasons.[/b]][/quote]
Note the key phrase "[b]proportionate[/b] reasons."
If war and the death penalty do not have the same weight as abortion and euthanasia, then certainly other reasons listed cannot be regarded as proportionate reasons to vote for blatantly pro-abortion candidates.

The idea that a Catholic voter can vote for a candidate as pro-abortion as he wannabe for any reason he chooses as long as the he isn't voting [i]because[/i] of the politician's pro-abort stance is nonsense.
The reason must be proportionate - that is to say, it must be to prevent an even greater evil.
In today's political arena, there is no greater evil being supported than abortion.


[quote]Frankly, I think the argument that this was intended for the average Joe six-pack is a copout. Citizenship is a rare privilege that we should treasure, and in this instance dumbing it down means people are not being properly formed and not realizing the full potential they have as human persons.

I, for one, think we could all stand to exercise well-formed prudence a little more often.[/quote]
When a majority of the so-called "Catholic vote" voted for a blatantly pro-abortion candidate last election, and regularly votes more pro-abortion than the protestant population, there is indeed a problem with Catholic voters in this country.
And it has nothing to do with Catholics voting "lock-step" against "pro-choice" candidates, nor with CA's voting guide.

The problem is that a majority of "Catholic" voters are paying absolutely no attention to Catholic moral teaching whatever when casting their vote, or putting the life issues on the back burner, while justifying it by finding "nuanced" justifications for cooperating remotely in the evil of abortion.

Such a mentality simply helps perpetuate the Culture of Death in this country.

When "Catholic" voters repeatedly put what the Church regards as the most important moral issues last on their priorities, and votes for candidates who blatantly support the evil of abortion in their actions, this shows something is wrong.
And I don't think the finger of blame should be pointed at those, like Catholic Answers, who try to draw attention to the importance of the life issues.

I think you should check out Archbishop Chaput's book [url="http://www.amazon.com/Render-unto-Caesar-Catholic-Political/dp/0385522290/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1244848260&sr=8-1"][i]Render unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living Our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life[/i][/url]. He offers some damning and very accurate observations about Catholics and politics.