Catholic voters guide in full-page newspaper ads

San Diego, Aug. 27 (CWNews.com) - A Catholic apologetics group whose guide for Catholic voters was criticized by the US bishops' conference's lawyers is now preparing to put the guide before over one million voters in eight major metropolitan areas.

The group Catholic Answers is taking out a full-page ad in USA Today on Tuesday, August 31, which will provide a synopsis of the five key issues they've identified for Catholic voters to consider when they go to the polls: abortion, same-sex unions, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, and euthanasia. Catholic Answers' president, Karl Keating, said the guide will inform Catholics that they can't deliberately vote against the Church's moral teachings and still call themselves "good Catholics."

"It's a serious sin to vote for moral evils, especially those that are so clearly opposed to the Church's teachings," he said.

Catholic Answers' "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" is available on the group's web site at www.catholic.com. Keating said the guide does not mention any candidates of political parties, but explains the fundamental moral issues that Catholics must consider when voting and that they cannot in good conscience vote for candidates who support, endorse, or condone those five objectionable stances.

Keating denied accusations that the guide is partisan: "These are the primary moral issues of our day. Four of them concern deliberate homicide, which is always and everywhere wrong. There's no room for 'debate' about murder or ending an innocent human life at its most vulnerable stages. These are non-negotiable issues, regardless of party politics or specific candidates."

He concluded, "In the past, most Catholics have not voted according to the Church's moral teachings. They checked their faith at the door when they stepped into the polling place. That needs to change."

-- - (David@excite.com), August 29, 2004

Answers

Why would a Catholic criticise this?

Any thoughts?

-- - (David@excite.com), August 29, 2004.

As we watch our world disintegrates all around us. Evil, the spirit of the antichrist, permeates even the smallest villages. The seven deadly sins seem to be goals for daily living. Man has become his own god and is so in love with himself he cannot believe what he does is evil

It’s not that these things have not been around since Adam and Eve, it just that they seem so much more pervasive today, at all levels of society, than I was ever aware. God is out, sin is in.

If people knew what is in store for them, would they reconsider? Before they will be converted, the saints will be "tortured with such an extremity of barbarity with all the old and newly invented instruments of pain as to exceed all past persecutors of the Church combined… and [Antichrist] will starve to death all those who refuse to receive the mark of the beast impressed upon their foreheads or right hands." (St. Cyril of Jerusalem) That probably won’t win too may converts.

Antichrist is the spirit of atheistic materialism and humanism. As that settles comfortably among us, the deceiver of the world waits in the wings for his grand entrance.

Now were not suppose to speak out against gays, abortion, euthanasia [abuse of ]annullments?

-- - (David@excite.com), August 30, 2004.

You didn't write that last part either did you?

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), August 30, 2004.

I will be guided by the divinely appointed Pope and bishops not by self-appointed Catholic "leaders" like Mr Keating and co. He's not my leader.

-- Steve (55555@aol.com), August 31, 2004.

Why would a Catholic criticise this?

Any thoughts?

David,

My thoughts would be that some are new in the Church, not properly Catechized, and or in opposition to Church teaching.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), December 28, 2004.

What happens when the Pope spells out one thing in encyclicals and moto proprios, is seconded by the CDF, and then is quoted by one of these groups drawing a particular conclusion that has political ramifications...but then has some functionary in the Bishop's conference pooh pooh it?

Is he pooh poohing Keating or the Pope?

What if a cardinal archbishop complains that a given interpretation of canon law, Papal teaching, and the Catechism - which seems pretty darn clear on the face of things "really" is so complicated that he needs a 10 year commission of un-named theologians to ponder it (conveniently allowing current "catholic" politicians to skate or even finish their careers unmolested?

Is the Cardinal defying Rome? If he pooh poohs a group, is he making a CATHOLIC argument that his way is better pastorally? Or is he merely counting on his authority to shut down the debate?

When someone says "A" and another says "No, shut up" that isn't a "teaching moment". If the group is wrong, the bishop in question ought to have the decency and intelligence to point out exactly why such and such an argument is wrong. Not just say "shut up".

You have the recent controversy over "catholic" politicians who have gone on record praising abortion as a woman's right, going out of their way to fight for increased funding, getting awards from abortion groups, taking money from them for campaigns, etc... and then going to communion, getting honorary degrees and praise from Catholic institutions. And nary a peep from the local bishop.

Now when a pesky little group points out the serious inconsistency of this "pastoral approach" he or she is shouted down. Not explained why they are wrong, not explained why doing nothing is better than doing something. Just shouted down.

So they take out full page advertisements so everyone can see...and get criticised for it. But I note that nowhere and at no time has anyone pointed out that Keating is WRONG. Just that they don't like him and besides "who is he to say that?" (argument from authority).

OK. Well, everyone agrees that bishops have teaching authority. But we also all agree that historically bishops have been fallible, have fallen into heresy and apostasy, and have betrayed the Church out of political or human motives (hello, Bishops of England under King Henry VIII).

They derive their authority - their moral authority not from intrinsic sources but from their allegiance to the see of Peter - just as we all do, though in a different way. I am Catholic because of the sacraments. But my words are not Catholic just because I, Joe Catholic say them, but only in so far as they match the deposit of faith handed to me from the apostles, safeguarded by Peter's successor.

This why, though a man may be a baptised and confirmed Catholic, indeed may even be an ordained Catholic ontologically, he may also be a nut case and just plain either uninformed intellectually or heretical in what he believes.

I know. Shocking. Yes, the ontological effect of baptism doesn't remove the human ability to make mistakes or be stupid. There is more work to be done than just "be" Catholic. One must also preach - and teach... and make disciples... and you can't do that on your own whim or opinion. You must follow yourself and lead others to the deposit of faith, the treasure of truth handed down to us from the apostles as they have received it from Jesus Christ.

I have no office, but if my words are more in tune with the Pope's than a given prelate, then guess what? Not only do I win the argument but my state in life isn't even at issue. St.Catherine of Sienna anyone?

Not only that, but Canon law respects the rights of lay people to be prophetic even when others dare not raise their voices. Besides, what happened to the vaunted "hour of the laity" as called for repeatedly by the council and following documents?

If Keating is wrong, it shouldn't be too hard for a bishop or lay bureaucrat in the USCCB to show where and why. Don't hold your breath though.

-- Joe (joestong@yahoo.com), December 29, 2004.