I am puzzled by recent statements here, in the forum, that if someone votes for a particular politician whose personal beliefs (abortion, for example) are not in keeping with the Catholic Church, that voter could be committing mortal sin. I could be in error, but to my knowledge the Church has not yet made any such pronouncement. To the best of my knowledge one Bishop only to date, has stated that anyone who votes for someone who is pro-abortion should not receive communion until he has confessed this action. One Bishop does not a Church teaching make.

Of late, since Cardinal Arinse’s admonition, the Church is toughening up Her stand in distributing communion to public figures who support abortion, however, I do not believe the Church has taken this one step further and by extension, stated that any voter who votes for such a politician is in serious mortal sin. Denying communion to someone who is “publicly” in mortal sin is one thing, but judging someone to be in mortal sin because that individual voted for the politician in question is another. What of the other issues that affect the voter? Is the voter not entitled to obtain the best representation he can? Must he lose his vote entirely?

What about other sins committed by publicly elected officials? What about same sex marriages? What about voting for racists? What about homosexuality? What about voting for those who believe in stem cell/embryonic research, etc.? What about voting for politicians whose values do not line up exactly as the Church’s do? Do we commit a mortal sin if we vote for someone who is living with someone who is not his spouse? While Bush is Protestant, I believe he supports abortion in certain circumstances, ie. rape, incest, or when the birth will endanger the mother’s life. If the same criteria is applied to Bush that has been applied to Kerry then we must be likewise committing mortal sin if we vote for Bush. Are Catholics prohibited from voting for Bush because his position on abortion in not in line with the Church’s?

Those who make such claims may have ulterior motives. It could be a desire on their part to have voters shy away from studying the candidates position of various other issues by placing guilt on them through condemning them for their actions. Some politicians or those with certain agendas would be very pleased if they could convince Catholics they are in mortal sin for exercising their right to vote.

While it is incumbent upon each individual to form his own conscience, once properly formed, it is his responsibility to ensure all issues are examined and that the best possible candidate is selected. What politician is free from sin? Who can anyone vote for if the sole condition for his vote is that the politician not be in conflict with Church teaching or be in actual sin himself? Who are we to judge? Those who believe such things are merely hurting themselves by not allowing themselves to select the best possible candidate for them. In a religiously, culturally and morally bankrupt society, does the voter not do himself a disfavour if he chooses to limit himself to available choices in the voting booth to candidates who are in “communion” with Rome? If he takes this notion literally, he won’t be able to vote for anyone at all.

Americans believe in separation of Church and State. I believe this principle has been written into their constitution. This presents and interesting conundrum for all American Catholics in the coming election if they believe that if they vote for either Bush or Kerry they are in a state of serious mortal sin and must first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before receiving communion.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 16, 2004

Answers

Let's bump this thread to new answers to invite comment from others, particularly those who have stated in this forum that voting for certain politicians is considered to be committing mortal sin.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 16, 2004.

One Bishop does not a Church teaching make.

This may be at the root of the problem. Canon law states otherwise:

Canon 753 Whether they teach individually, or in Episcopal Conferences, or gathered together in particular councils, Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College, while not infallible in their teaching, are the authentic instructors and teachers of the faith for Christ's faithful entrusted to their care. The faithful are bound to adhere, with a religious submission of mind, to this authentic Magisterium of their Bishops.

Bishop Sheridan only has authority over his diocese, but in that diocese he represents the magisterium. He has the authority to teach that voting for Kerry or for Bush is sinful, just as Bishop Bruskewitz has the authority to excommunicate members of Call To Action in the diocese of Lincoln.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 16, 2004.

First, it's not, IMHO, the politician's personal beliefs, it's his "public" stance on issues which is key, and an individual Catholic's response to those. When we have a CHOICE between two individuals and one individual has a public stance which supports abortion across the board and the other does not, as Catholics we ought to make it a point to put LIFE first in our voting choices. One simply cannot be Catholic and ignore the fact of a major political candidate's pro-abortion agenda. They may be terrific regarding foreign policy and shoring up the economy; they may have the best ideas for saving Social Security and providing educational opportunties; they may be able to bring back manufacturing, lower taxes and give everyone 20 acres and a mule; yet what does it matter if the rest of us are living high off the hog and in relative peace in affordable housing if unborn infants are still being slaughtered by the millions each year? When do we step into the voting booth and make our voice heard that LIFE is more important than finances or education or any of those other things? And if it is not important/sacred to us, and as Catholics if we do not withold our vote from a candidate who publically supports abortion upon demand for all who seek it, we CONTRIBUTE to the ongoing abortions.

Mortal sin to vote for a candidate who promises to keep all abortions legal as long as he is in office? I honestly couldn't say because I sure don't speak for the Church. For myself, it's merely common sense as a Catholic not to vote for anyone who has such an agenda, because then I become part of the agenda myself. God forbid.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.

From Bishop Sheridan's statement:

Among the many distortions and misrepresentations that prevail in the current debates about the relationship between religion and the social order (politics) is the assertion that faith and politics are to be kept separated. This, apparently, is based upon the American doctrine of the separation of church and state. In fact, the wall that separates church and state is the safeguard against both the establishment of a state religion and the imposition of sectarian religious beliefs and practices, such as particular denominational forms of worship or theological tenets. In no way does the American doctrine of separation of church and state even suggest that the well-formed consciences of religious people should not be brought to bear on their political choices.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 16, 2004.

Mark, are you not taking this too literally? Bishops “in communion” to me, suggests that they are of one mind when teaching the tenets of the faith. If I can find a Bishop who teaches that voters should vote for candidates who best represents their interests, then which Bishop is right? Is it fair for the Catholics in Bishop’s Sheridan’s diocese not to be able to vote for Bush or for Kerry because of what he has said, while other Catholics in the U.S. are free to vote simply because their Bishops has not pronounced on this issue?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 16, 2004.

Lesley, what if all viable candidates support one form of abortion or another as in the case of Kerry and Bush? You do realize that Bush supports abortion in certain instances, don’t you? Is a Catholic then permitted to vote? If he does select the lesser of two evils, is he committing mortal sin?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 16, 2004.

Hi!

I'm from the state of Pennsylvania. I have only one vote to influence how I am to be represented in the Union in the House of Representatives, one in the Senate, and one in the White House. Having seen how the senatorial race proceeded with Toomey and Specter then according to Mark Aujus, I should have to vote with Schriner. Bishop Sheridan's "extension of guilt clause" implies that voting for Bush who "voted" for Specter means that I would share in the same guilt. If Specter is a "kerry" then Toomey is no "bush", but a "schriner". There's no mistake about it when one lives in pennsylvania after witnessing all the "who's far out, Specter or Toomey" advertisement. Bush's advertised endorsement of Specter put the icing on the cake. Faced with a clear choice of life or death, Bush chose death in Arlen Specter. So let's say Mark, that you have it right and I should vote Schriner and neither Bush nor Kerry.

However, what happens in the Senate? Hoeffel or Specter? Should I vote for Specter now because he represents the lesser of two evils, or throw my vote away on Toomey since he's out of it? My vote for the Senate carries equal weight in terms of representing me, more weight in terms of percentage of total electoral votes, less weight in terms of pennsylvania's electoral votes. Still, I should like to point out that it is no less a vote in the Union as my vote for the White House.

Now, if by voting Toomey I clearly throw my vote away, and also by voting Schriner I would also clearly throw my vote away, then should I ignore Bishop Sheridan? Or should I go with what is inarguably church teaching and vote for the lessers of two evils? Sheridan, right or wrong?

Bill pointed this out. In pointing it out, is he endorsing what Bishop Sheridan says? Or by endorsing Bush is he ipso facto rejecting what the bishop says? I would appreciate comprehensive answers please.

God Bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 16, 2004.

interesting...Ed.

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 16, 2004.

Ed and Vincent,

According to all the theological opinions I have seen, to intentionally vote for a politician who favors killing children is a sin. Here is an example of one such opinion

I think there are a few very good voter guides out there now that answer your questions. The one I recommend you study is the one from Catholic Answers.

Another excellent guide is on EWTN, here

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.

Mark, are you not taking this too literally?

Not really. The "in communion" requirement only rules out Eastern Orthodox bishops, as well as other bishops in schism (e.g., Old Catholics), and those Catholic bishops who have been excommunicated.

Is it fair for the Catholics in Bishop’s Sheridan’s diocese not to be able to vote for Bush or for Kerry because of what he has said, while other Catholics in the U.S. are free to vote simply because their Bishops has not pronounced on this issue?

"Fair" isn't the first word that jumps to my mind. But it is how the Church is governed. Is it fair that members of Call To Action are excommunicated in Bishop Bruskewitz's diocese, but not in other dioceses? Is it fair that members in Bishop Botean's eparchy in Canton, Ohio, were forbidden under pain of mortal sin to take part in the U.S. war on Iraq? Frankly, Bishop Sheridan's teaching/action is mild in comparison to these other examples.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 16, 2004.

Is it fair that members in Bishop Botean's eparchy in Canton, Ohio, were forbidden under pain of mortal sin to take part in the U.S. war on Iraq?

If he said that, Bishop Botean was teaching outside of Catholic teaching here and could not make such a statement. His flock is not held to such a statement since it is counter to Magistarial teaching.

Again, take a minute and read the guides I pointed to. That's why I pointed to them.

-bill

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.

Ed, as I said before regarding mortal sin: "I honestly don't know". I leave that entirely up to my Church. I am not one to question the Church's teachings about anything..nothing at all. Jesus Christ gave the Catholic Church total authority, so who am I to question what the Church says is right or wrong? The Catholic Church teaches that abortion is wrong. ONE presidential candidate has stated that he will, if elected, work as hard as he can to keep abortion available ON DEMAND to anyone, for any reason whatsoever or for no reason, at any time..in other words, business as usual. The other candidate has stated that he approves of abortion in VERY LIMITED circumstances and would actively seek to CHANGE the existing laws so that there would be far fewer abortions in this country. Without beating it to death, once again, I find it an obvious choice: votes for one candidate guarantees the continuation of millions of aborted infants..votes for the other candidate opens another door to the possibility of STOPPING millions of unborn infant deaths. It is the responsibility of the Bishops to stress that LIFE is THE most important "issue" and I am glad that some of them are doing so. When should the Church begin to stress LIFE? When a politician surfaces who is 100% against abortion? Until then, should the Church sit on its' hands and say nothing and do nothing? Look for a moment at how politicians form their views. IF, just IF, ALL Catholics actually made a very LOUD noise and my goodness, IF all CHRISTIANS made a loud noise at the voting booth against abortion how long do you think it would take before abortion would magically be outlawed in this country? If the Bishops are quiet and their people are quiet and other churches remain quiet then who will speak up for the murdered children? I lived in Pennsylvania for many years..that is a lovely state and it's filled with Christians. Why haven't they been calling Senator Spector day and night and telling HIM how they feel about abortions? Apathy, IMHO..it's pervasive.

-- lesley (martchas@hotmail.com), May 16, 2004.

If he said that, Bishop Botean was teaching outside of Catholic teaching here and could not make such a statement. His flock is not held to such a statement since it is counter to Magistarial teaching.

Actually, it is you who cannot make such a statement as this one above. Only the Pope and/or the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith can legitimately determine whether a bishop is acting counter to the magisterium.

The statement can be found here. A relevant section is:

Therefore I, by the grace of God and the favor of the Apostolic See Bishop of the Eparchy of St. George in Canton, must declare to you, my people, for the sake of your salvation as well as my own, that any direct participation and support of this war against the people of Iraq is objectively grave evil, a matter of mortal sin. Beyond a reasonable doubt this war is morally incompatible with the Person and Way of Jesus Christ. With moral certainty I say to you it does not meet even the minimal standards of the Catholic just war theory.

Thus, any killing associated with it is unjustified and, in consequence, unequivocally murder. Direct participation in this war is the moral equivalent of direct participation in an abortion. For the Catholics of the Eparchy of St. George, I hereby authoritatively state that such direct participation is intrinsically and gravely evil and therefore absolutely forbidden.

At least the members of the diocese of Colorado Springs don't have to risk being jailed to avoid participating in mortal sin. All they have to do is vote for an acceptable candidate, or not vote at all.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 16, 2004.

Again, take a minute and read the guides I pointed to. That's why I pointed to them.

I read both guides. Neither has an imprimatur. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also has a guide which I would recommend because it comes straight from the magisterium of the Church.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 16, 2004.

Bill, you wrote, “According to all the theological opinions I have seen, to intentionally vote for a politician who favors killing children is a sin.” You should have posted links to your post that substantiate your view. Allow me to comment on the links you posted apparently to suggest they support the stand that anyone who votes for a politician who supports abortion commits mortal sin, for they clearly do not. Bill, with all due respect, you are misreading what is being written in the links you’ve given to support your statement.

Firstly, in the first link Father Habiger opens his article with the first six paragraphs explaining the Church’s position on abortion itself, that it is intrinsically evil. I don’t think he will get an argument about this from any Catholic. Then Father Habiger makes a giant assumption. He says, “The argument can be made that voting is a very remote form of cooperation in abortion.” Here he clearly has taken liberties with Church teaching. If his ill- rationalized argument is accurate, then all Catholics who vote for politicians who support abortion, not only commit sin, but in addition, are automatically excommunicated by virtue of Church law on the matter. Clearly, this is Father Habiger’s personal opinion on this matter and not Church teaching. Once his colossal assumption is made he gives no evidence from Church teaching to support it.

Bill, in the second link you gave, the Catholic Answers Voter’s Guide lists five non-negotiable issues Catholics are to consider. Abortion is one of them. They get no argument from me here. But Bill, if you read it carefully, Catholic Answers is stating it is a sin to vote for abortion, ie. a candidate cannot vote for abortion or he commits serious sin. The article is not stating that it is a sin to vote for a politician who supports abortion in any form. There is a difference. This article also quotes paragraph 73 of Evangelium Vitae which bears this out. It reaffirms that it is illicit anyone to vote for abortion - it doesn't state it's a sin to vote for a politician who supports abortion. In the same paragraph it goes on to say that a legislator can vote for a lesser form of abortion than one that has already been passed into law in countries that are re-thinking their position on abortion. It clearly indicates in this instance the legislator in no way is committing sin by attempting to limit or lessen the evil aspects of any current abortion laws. Nowhere does paragraph 73 state it is a sin to vote for a politician who supports abortion. Clearly this section deals with legislators and their responsibilities as Catholics when voting.

Thirdly, nowhere can I find in your final link where it says that one commits a mortal sin when voting for a candidate who is pro- abortion. In fact, one priests claim it is a mortal sin NOT to vote, less an unworthy candidate be elected.

If one believes that the Church teaches that to vote for someone who supports abortion in any form is to commit mortal sin then American Catholics will be committing mortal sin in the upcoming federal election if they vote for Bush, Kerry or Nader since each supports abortion to some extent.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 16, 2004.

Ed, I really enjoy your posts! Originally, I was going to post in the other thread. But, it pertained to this thread so I copied and posted almost immediately after your previous post.

Mark, I'm sure you're being facetious with Schriner but you really got under my skin. There's something about absolute moral truth that commands the conscience to obey. Still, I would wait for someone more qualified than Joe Schriner. In the meantime, I will continue to vote for the lesser of two evils...unless Cardinal Rigali...nevermind :)

Leslie, I agree. People are apathetic, IMHO. Cardinal McCarrick's way of dealing with all this is admirable. From what I have seen, his calling is charity. I hope he succeeds and converts hearts.

Peace and God Bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 17, 2004.

Mark, you said, “ The "in communion" requirement only rules out Eastern Orthodox bishops, as well as other bishops in schism (e.g., Old Catholics), and those Catholic bishops who have been excommunicated.” That’s just the point. You may want to ask yourself, why the Eastern Churches and rogue Bishops are in schism and ex-communicated. It’s because the don’t teach “in communion”, the teachings of the Church. It’s not because they simply refuse to acknowledge the authority of Rome. It’s because they teach heresy and have refused to change their ways after having been admonished by the Hierarchy of the Church. The word “communion” does not mean to succumb to authority. The Church does not force people, Bishops, etc. into something they don’t agree with. If this is the case, they are free to walk. If they don't agree with Church teaching they are ex-communicated but the Church certainly does not hold them against their will and never has. To be "in communion" as it applies to the Church means to be in agreement, to be onside, to be in accord with and to be united with, to be one with the teachings of the Church.

When I used the word “fair”, I did not mean “just” as in, “nondiscriminatory”. I meant to use the word “fair” as in, “objective, pure, righteous, scrupulous and virtuous”. God’s Truth is absolute. It’s objective. It’s not subjective based on one man’s opinion. You cannot commit an act in one diocese and commit mortal sin, and commit the same act in another diocese and not commit that same sin. The Truth transcends the authority of any one man, it stems from God. It is immutable and unchangeable from diocese to diocese.

Bishops individually can explain and teach the tenets of the faith, of course they can, but they cannot pronounce new teachings (ie. it’s a mortal sin to vote for someone who supports abortion) individually and purport to be speaking as the Ordinary Magisterium. Canon 753 that you’ve quoted backs me up on this. It says an individual Bishop can teach that which is Church teachings, but nowhere does it say he is permitted to add, or bastardize Church teaching on his own. The Ordinary Magisterium when making new pronouncements, is made up of Bishops and Our Holy Father whose thinking are in “unison” on new matters regarding faith and morals. To date I haven’t heard Bishops around the world make the same pronouncement that Bishop Sheridan has.

Mark you said, “At least the members of the diocese of Colorado Springs don't have to risk being jailed to avoid participating in mortal sin. All they have to do is vote for an acceptable candidate, or not vote at all.” Tell me, of the three viable candidates in the upcoming U.S. federal election, who can the Catholics-in-good- standing in the diocese of Colorado Springs vote for? Kerry is in favour of abortion in some form or other. Bush is in favour of abortion in some for or other. Nader is in favour of abortion in some form or other. Who will these Catholics vote for? If they vote for any one of these candidates, according to Bishop Sheridan they will be committing mortal sin?

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 17, 2004.

Hi Lesley, your approach to this question is the correct one. Just as Evangelium Vitae (73) states that a politician can vote of an abortion bill that is less threatening to children in the womb, so too, can a Catholic vote for a candidate who is less pro-abortion than others. At the end of the day a voter should assess all of the candidates based on the Christian principles they defend and then vote! No sin is committed if, inadvertently, your vote is cast for someone who is against the Church on a certain issue (abortion for example) but his position is the least threatening on that issue than the other candidates, or, on other issues, he is more closely aligned with Church teaching than the others.

You have a good point Lesley in that Catholics should mobilize so that, at election time they have a choice of acceptable candidates to vote for rather than being forced into voting for a lesser of two/three evils.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 17, 2004.

It's seems clear enough now for me to give credit owed to Bill which IMHO what this is all about. Bill, distribution of this letter is a great thing to do. However, it must be noted with extra care that this letter is of the apostolic exhortation type and neither a voting guide nor to be construed as teaching authority.

The letter reminds the Bishop's constituents that they, too, should rise to responsibility. Neither the magisterium, the politicians, nor the voters should carry the weight alone. If that is the case, then I wholeheartedly agree.

God Bless,

-- Vincent (love@noemail.net), May 17, 2004.

An individual bishop who says one thing without the other bishops saying it or agreeing with it, then it is not from God right? Or at least not until the other bishops would agree on it.

Will there ever be a PERFECT polititian? I don't understand this. What is a canidate for president believed and would pass abortion ONLY for women who have been raped. To kill that child is still a sin! And the other polititian believed and would pass gay marriges. That too is a sin. Both are mortal sins. Should we not vote?

Personaly, both would make me sick as the canidates now do, but I was planning on voting for Bush, or would that be a sin because of some of his beliefs?

This gets too confusion.

-- Jason (Enchanted fire5@aol.com), May 17, 2004.

Bill,

The Truth transcends the authority of any one man, it stems from God. It is immutable and unchangeable from diocese to diocese.

My understanding is that Call To Action is planning on using this argument in their (second) appeal of Bishop Bruskewitz's excommunications. We'll see how the Vatican responds to this line of reasoning.

The bishops have a lot of authority within their own dioceses. If you are a young girl who wants to be an altar server, whether you can or not depends on which diocese you live in. If you are an employee of Planned Parenthood, whether or not you can get married depends on which diocese you live in. Whether Kerry can recieve Holy Communion depends on which diocese he is attending Mass in. Bishops control access to the sacraments, which are key for salvation. Being excommunicated has very serious consequences for one's mortal soul. And it is a fact of the Catholic Church that it does depend on which diocese you are in.

When Cardinal Arinze was asked about Kerry taking communion, he said, "The norm of the Church is clear. The Church exists in the United States. There are bishops there, let them interpret it."

Bishops individually can explain and teach the tenets of the faith, of course they can, but they cannot pronounce new teachings (ie. it’s a mortal sin to vote for someone who supports abortion) individually and purport to be speaking as the Ordinary Magisterium.

That cooperation in sin is itself sinful is hardly a new teaching of the Church.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 17, 2004.

Sorry, I meant "Ed" instead of "Bill".

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 17, 2004.

Tell me, of the three viable candidates in the upcoming U.S. federal election, who can the Catholics-in-good-standing in the diocese of Colorado Springs vote for?

No quote-unquote viable candidate. Who defines viable anyway? For that matter, who defines "throwing your vote away"? If the candidate that you vote for doesn't win, did you throw your vote away? If so, then over half of the country throws their vote away every election.

IF, just IF, ALL Catholics actually made a very LOUD noise and my goodness, IF all CHRISTIANS made a loud noise at the voting booth against abortion how long do you think it would take before abortion would magically be outlawed in this country?

Abortion will never be completely, or even substantially outlawed in this country. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have any interest in doing so, because that would cause them to lose their very valuable "single-issue" voters, without whom they would actually be held accountable for their many other misdeeds.

Just as Evangelium Vitae (73) states that a politician can vote of an abortion bill that is less threatening to children in the womb, so too, can a Catholic vote for a candidate who is less pro-abortion than others.

This is a false analogy. Under Robert's Rules of Order, there are times when a legislator must choose between two bills. In the Presidental election, there are many more than two candidates, and the voter always the ability to do a "write-in" vote. So there is no excuse for sinning by voting for an unacceptable candidate.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 17, 2004.

Mark, it really isn’t “fair” (as in equitable or just) to compare the Call to Action/Bishop Bruskewitz situation with the topic of this thread - a Bishop proclaiming that an individual is in sin if he votes for a candidate who supports any form of abortion. The Call to Action Group has openly stated they are in favour of married priests, birth control, the ordination of women, etc. topics on which the Church has pronounced over and over again on, in the past. The individuals who enroll in Call to Action do not give their assent to existing Church teaching. The threat of ex-communication has been used not because they belong to an organization, but rather, because by virtue of their membership in this society, they openly defy Church teaching. This is far different than someone voting for the lesser of three evils in a public election when attempting to preserve Christian principles.

The Bishop has been given the authority to ex-communicate individuals who do not comply with existing Church teaching. Regardless of the whether they use the “absolute Truth” argument in their defence or not, any individual who is in schism - direct defiance of Church teaching, risks being ex-communicated. People who exercise their right to vote, as encouraged by the Church are merely acting responsibly. You haven’t yet proven to me whereby one Bishop can a new doctrine make.

Mark, you referred to female altar servers as an example of when a Bishops can act unilaterally on behalf of the Church. Aren’t you mixing apples with oranges here? Aren’t you confusing disciplines with doctrine? I will remind you what our good Deacon, Paul M. recently said about the subject:

Doctrine cannot and does not change. Ever. Our understanding of various doctrinal beliefs can increase over time through additional study, but the Church has no authority to change the essence of any doctrinal belief because God is the source of all such doctrine, and the Church is divinely commissioned to teach and preserve it. Disciplines on the other hand, such as rules for fasting and abstinence, the order of the Mass, the logistics of celebrating the sacraments, etc. are made by the Church and are therefore subject to change by the Church as the Church deems necessary for the good of the faithful.

Appointing altar servers is a discipline and left to the discretion of the Bishop. Setting new doctrine, ie. “it’s a sin to vote for a politician who supports abortion” is not within the realm or responsibilities of one Bishop.

Your “Planned Parenthood” argument is similar to your “Call to Action” argument. By participating in the organization in one form or another the participant is openly defying existing Church doctrine.

I disagree with you that Kerry “can receive Holy Communion depending on which diocese he is attending mass in”. The Church - not one Bishop, but the entire Church has clearly stated Her views on whether public figures who support abortion should be receiving Communion at all, regardless of the diocese they are attending mass in. A priest/bishop who gives Communion to Kerry cannot be faulted for wanting to avoid an unpleasant scene and thus scandal, in the Church. This is a far cry from saying that some Bishops condone what Kerry is doing by allowing him to receive Communion in their diocese while others do not.

Cardinal Arinze was quite right when he stated “the norm of the Church is clear”. Perhaps he used the wrong word when he stated let the bishops “interpret” it - as in “take this teaching and change it/bastardize it to your own liking”. I’m sure Cardinal Arinze meant “it is every bishop’s responsibility to understand this norm as the Church intends its meaning to be.”

Mark, you said, “That cooperation in sin is itself sinful is hardly a new teaching of the Church.” Who is cooperating with sin when they vote for a candidate who best serves their Christian principles? If I am to take your words literally, then Catholics will not be permitted to vote this coming election in the United States under penalty of mortal sin. The Church clearly has not said this.

Mark, you wrote, “No quote-unquote viable candidate. Who defines viable anyway? For that matter, who defines "throwing your vote away"? If the candidate that you vote for doesn't win, did you throw your vote away? If so, then over half of the country throws their vote away every election.” This makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever. Elections are based on the will of the people, not the individual. No vote is ever lost unless it isn’t cast/exercised. At the end of the day any and all votes who “lost” actually “won” in that the democratic process was carried out and the will of the majority of voters has spoken.

Mark, you wrote, “Abortion will never be completely, or even substantially outlawed in this country.” That’s because politicians aren’t threatened with the possibility of not being re-elected if they don’t change their policies on abortion. If Catholics all massed together and spoke with one vote, even in America, I dare say things could change. The problem is not that abortion is just too popular to change, the problem is that Catholics remain too quiet to effect meaningful change.

Mark, you wrote, “Under Robert's Rules of Order, there are times when a legislator must choose between two bills. In the Presidential election, there are many more than two candidates, and the voter always the ability to do a "write-in" vote. So there is no excuse for sinning by voting for an unacceptable candidate.” Again, your logic escapes me. It isn’t as simple as a legislator choosing between pieces of legislature. Candidates choose sides on a multitude of various issues. Again, in voting for someone who is less “pro-abortion” than someone else is not sinning. It is merely protecting one’s position the best way possible given the alternatives. I merely used Evangelium Vitae as a way of showing the Church’s reasoning in similar circumstances.

Jason, just a note to you to say I’m sorry if by creating this thread I have caused some confusion for you. If you are concerned about anything written here, please see your priest to clear things up for you. I’m sure he will tell you that in exercising your right to vote, you will not be committing sin simply because all candidates support abortion in one form or another. Additionally, you must remember that for one to commit mortal sin, three elements must exist. One of the elements of committing mortal sin is to give full consent to offending God. Judging by your comments since you are confused by what’s been said here, it would be impossible for you to knowingly offend God and thus commit mortal sin, were you to vote today for the candidate you felt will most serve your needs as a Christian.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 18, 2004.

Ed,

I really don't have a whole lot to add, but here are two points I want to comment on.

If I am to take your words literally, then Catholics will not be permitted to vote this coming election in the United States under penalty of mortal sin.

No, they can vote for Joe Schriner. Thus all my talk about who defines "viable" candidates.

If Catholics all massed together and spoke with one vote, even in America, I dare say things could change.

If every single Catholic votes for Joe Schriner, then things would change very quickly. But if every single Catholic votes for Bush, we will have the same status quo that we do during his current term.

You haven’t yet proven to me whereby one Bishop can a new doctrine make.

Again, this isn't new doctrine. Here (go to "Bishop Boteans' Lenten Message if you aren't automatically positioned there) is canonical analysis By Dr. Edward Peters of Bishop Botean's unique claim that members of his eparchy are in mortal sin if they participate in the Iraqi war. Notice nowhere does Dr. Peters suggest that Catholics in his eparchy can simply ignore the Bishop using the arguments that you suggest.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

Oops, three points.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

Mark, I really don’t have a lot to add either. You wrote, “No, they can vote for Joe Schriner. Thus all my talk about who defines "viable" candidates.” For me, a voter, I define for myself who is and who is not a “viable” candidate. Joe Schriner, were I to vote in the upcoming U.S. election (which I am not) is not a “viable” candidate. Canon 211 states, “All Christ's faithful have the obligation and the right to strive so that the divine message of salvation may more and more reach all people of all times and all places.” Voting for Schriner doesn’t do this for me!

Mark, you wrote, “If every single Catholic votes for Joe Schriner, then things would change very quickly. But if every single Catholic votes for Bush, we will have the same status quo that we do during his current term.” Agreed, if Schriner were mobilized and if Catholics were not concerned about other issues in their daily lives then Schriner might have a chance, but that is not the case, so for this election, American Catholics should play with the hand their dealt with and work toward changing things for the future.

Mark, please don’t keep bringing Bishop Boteans’ situation into this discussion. The issues are different. Even the page you linked referred to bishops as being “teachers” of the faith, not “creators” of the faith. The Bishop is expounding on an issue that has been declared by the Church. The Church has declared the war in Iraq as immoral in the same manner as the Church has declared abortion to be immoral (I know, some in this forum might not agree with me). However, the Church has not declared that in voting for a politician who supports the war in Iraq, one is committing mortal sin, in the same way She has not declared that in voting for a politician who supports abortion, one is committing mortal sin. The parishioners of Bishop Boteans diocese who ignore him are participating directly in the war in Iraq. The parishioners of Bishop’s Sheridan’s diocese are not performing abortions. The link you provided by the way, also points out by the way that bishops individually are not infallible.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 18, 2004.

The parishioners of Bishop’s Sheridan’s diocese are not performing abortions. The link you provided by the way, also points out by the way that bishops individually are not infallible.

No, the bishops are certainly not infallible. But canon law defines what steps need to be taken to correct a bishop's errors. And none of those steps involves the members of the laity coming to their own determinations as to whether or not the bishop in question is acting in accord with Church teachings.

I will make a prediction: Whether Bush or Kerry wins the election, in 2008 there will still be 1.3 million abortions performed in the U.S. every year.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

Here is further evidence to support my opinion that a bishop cannot act independently in matters of faith and morals but rather only when in harmony with the head of the Church and bishops throughout the world. From Canon Law (375):

“§§2 By their episcopal consecration, Bishops receive, together with the office of sanctifying, the offices also of teaching and of ruling, which however, by their nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its members.”

This supports Canon 753 (above) wherein it states that while Bishops can teach individually, they must be in communion with the head and the members of the College of Bishops.

Further evidence that to be in “communion” means more than just bowing to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, that it also means being bound in the faith to all other bishops throughout the world, in matters of faith and morals, can be found in Lumen Gentium 22:

“Just as, in accordance with the Lord's decree, St Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a unique apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another. Indeed, the very ancient discipline whereby the bishops installed throughout the whole world lived in communion with one another and with the Roman Pontiff in a bond of unity, charity and peace.”

... and again in Lumen Gentium 25 wherein it shows a form of infallibility exists when in communion with the Holy Father and other bishops throughout the world on matters of faith and morals:

“Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitively and absolutely.”

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 18, 2004.

Here is further evidence to support my opinion that a bishop cannot act independently in matters of faith and morals but rather only when in harmony with the head of the Church and bishops throughout the world.

I fully agree with this.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@hotmail.com), May 18, 2004.

Here is further evidence to support my opinion that a bishop cannot act independently in matters of faith and morals but rather only when in harmony with the head of the Church and bishops throughout the world.

I also have no problem with this statement. The problem comes in when you presume to judge Bishop Sheridan as not being in harmony with the magisterium. His statement has received significant press attention, yet neither the Pope nor any other Bishop has made such a claim. Given that not even doctors of Sacred Theology may sit in judgment of the bishops, just as no power on Earth can sit in judgment of the Pope, any claim by you that Bishop Sheridan has placed himself outside the magisterium serves only to lead the members of Colorado Springs diocese into dissent and sin.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

Mark, neither the Head of the Church nor any other bishop in the world has stated that mortal sin is committed when someone votes for a politician who supports abortion. This should tell you something in light of the above references to Church teaching regarding a bishop's authority and the definition of term "in communion". Bishop Sheridan is not speaking on behalf of the Magisterium. When making such a statement he is, without a doubt, fallible.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 18, 2004.

When making such a statement he is, without a doubt, fallible.

How do you explain the fact that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pope haven't been able to see what is so obvious to you? Is the CDF staffed by idiots? Is the Pope just a dottering old fool who is too infirm to effectively carry out his office? I certainly don't think so.

But for your claim that Bishop Sheridan is acting outside the magisterium to hold water, you also need to extend this "fallibility" statement of yours to the CDF and the Pope. So you are in fact claiming that you know more about what the magisterium of the Church contains than not only Bishop Sheridan, but the CDF and the Pope as well. I'm sorry, but I find that hard to swallow.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

Mark, I don’t claim to know more than the Magisterium. I have merely pointed out that Bishop Sheridan is not speaking for the Magisterium. His opinion on whether one commits mortal sin in this situation is just that - his opinion. I’ve given you plenty of examples of Church teaching to support my point of view that in order to compel Catholics to give their assent to such a pronouncement, more bishops from around the world and the Holy Father would have to be in agreement with him. To date I have not seen any evidence of this.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 18, 2004.

For heavens sake, this is beyond belief! The fact that practicing Catholics are faced with this ridiculous dilemma, proves the inherent wisdom of separating church and state. We are being advised not to vote for any candidate who does not respect the sanctity of life from conception to birth. At the same time, the honchos on Catholic radio stations and message boards hype the invasion of Iraq, write off the deaths of human beings as "collateral damage", espouse the most transparently selfish "moral" reasons for stiffing the poor, and drool at the prospect of watching opposing politicians publicly denied communion or even excommunicated. To sum it up, it appears that Catholics are being warned about the "sinfulness" of voting with regard to any life issue that applies to "post-gestation" human beings and/or the condition the country in general. Hypocrisy is too mild a word to describe this.

-- Barbara Haislep (jellyslastjam@hotmail.com), May 18, 2004.

I don’t claim to know more than the Magisterium. I have merely pointed out that Bishop Sheridan is not speaking for the Magisterium.

Ed, it is obvious to me that the above two sentences are in direct contradiction with each other. By judging that Bishop Sheridan's teachings are outside the magisterium, you are by that very act claiming to know more than the magisterium.

To date I have not seen any evidence of this.

From my reading of canon 753, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence that the other Bishops hold that Bishop Sheridan is outside the magisterium. However, when Clinton illicitly took Holy Communion in South Africa in 1998, it only took one week for the Vatican curia to issue a pronouncement against the bishops who authorized it. So should the Vatican curia fail to condemn Bishop Sheridan, I think you will have your evidence.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 18, 2004.

Barbara,
You need to read this Voters Guide or this one (or both).

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), May 18, 2004.

Barbara, please don’t despair. While some of the views you read here appear extreme they are not necessarily that of the Church’s. This is not a “Catholic” forum in that, it is sanctioned by, or operated by, the Catholic Church. This is a forum that discusses the “Catholic” faith. Just because you read it here, doesn’t necessarily make it true!

The true Catholic message never changes, its immutable. It is Love, Himself. I suggest you talk to a priest about your concerns and you might be pleasantly surprised to learn that many things you’ve heard about the Catholic faith are not accurate.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 19, 2004.

Mark, you wrote, “you are by that very act claiming to know more than the magisterium.” I disagree, I am simply pointing out what what the Church says constitutes the “Magisterium” and where a bishop’s authority lies.

How you can read the part in Canon 753 that describes the Magisterium that says, “Bishops in communion with the head and the members of the College...” and assume that in the ensuing silence, in the absence of no other comments by Church officials on this matter, the Church is condoning or supporting what Bishop Sheridan has said, is beyond me to comprehend. Clearly, when the Church wants to proclaim the Truth, She doesn’t get one Bishop to do it for her and then supports him with Her silence. It just doesn’t work that way.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 19, 2004.

It just doesn’t work that way.

Maybe you feel that it *shouldn't* work that way, but that is different than saying that it *doesn't* work that way.

Canonist Dr. Edward Peters feels about Bishop Botean's statement the same way that you feel about Bishop Sheridan's. I know that, in your own assessment, you feel Bishop Botean's statement was in line with the magisterium, while Bishop Sheridan's is out of line. But Dr. Peters had several arguments why that Bishop Botean's statement was out of line with Church teaching, and even gave one, as an example. (But he did not bother giving his other arguments, because he knew it was not his place to judge the Bishop's teaching on a theological level.)

I draw two conclusions from the above facts: First, if you let the laity judge for themselves which teachings of their bishops are consistent with their view of Church teachings, then everyone comes to different conclusions. All that we are left with is a bunch of people deciding for themselves what to believe in, with the authority of the Church serving no actual purpose.

Second, that Dr. Peters does not read into canon 753 the same opportunity for dissent that you have found by reinterpreting the words "in communion with the head and the members of the College...". Notice further that that phrase modifies the Bishops, and *not* their teachings, so that it is not something that you can turn on and off based on whether you approve of an individual teaching.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 19, 2004.

Mark, an article Bill Nelson posted recently has caused me to revisit our discussion in order to better explain the point I am trying to make. I guess the difference in our opinion of what constitutes “communion” in the Ordinary Magisterium is the crux of our disagreement. I believe that for the Ordinary Magisterium to be infallibly teaching or to be infallibly pronouncing on new doctrine all bishops around the world must be in agreement with the Pope. Up to this point, I think you agree with me. Correct me on this if I am mistaken.

What I believe our differences are, is how we perceive the bishops to be in “communion” with one another. You have said that silence is a good indicator that other bishops are in agreement or “in communion” with Bishop Sheridan. In the thread “Kerry shouldn’t take communion, says Canadian Bishop” Bill posted an article that showed a Canadian Bishop in favour of refusing communion to any pro-choice politician. The same article mentions two Bishops from Arizona who disagree with the Canadian Bishop. This article clearly shows that these bishops are in disagreement on this matter for whatever reasons.

This difference of opinion these bishops have, caused me to think about what is it in Church teaching that makes a teaching “infallible” and not just bishops’ opinions on certain matters. Then it struck me. The words “definitively and absolutely” are the key. What I posted above concerning Lumen Gentium bears repeating here with emphasis added:

“Although the bishops, taken individually, do not enjoy the privilege of infallibility, they do, however, proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ on the following conditions: namely, when, even though dispersed throughout the world but preserving for all that amongst themselves and with Peter's successor the bond of communion, in their authoritative teaching concerning matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held DEFINITIVELY AND ABSOLUTELY.”

Clause 25 above taken from Lumen Gentium clearly states for an existing teaching or new doctrine to be infallible, among other things, it must be “definitively and absolutely” taught. The bishops have to be in unison with one another and the Pope. Their opinion must be unanimous (definitive). It must be explicit (absolute). It must be expressed in a way that the assent of the people must be explicitly called for. The opinion must be clear and concise and leave no doubt in anyone’s mind as to what the Church is saying. There can be no ambiguity.

When one bishop claims he will refuse communion to a pro-choice politician and goes further by stating that any Catholic who votes for that politician is committing mortal sin, I feel he is voicing his personal opinion. Evidence of my convictions can be found by examining the statements of the other two bishops who would give communion to that same pro-choice politician. If they would give the politician communion, I dare say they won’t be telling their flock that to vote for him is to commit mortal sin. In any event, this to me, is sending conflicting messages and clearly not something that all three bishops are putting forth as an “infallible” doctrine. It’s certainly leaves too much doubt in my mind as to where the Church stands on the issue of committing sin if voting for a pro- choice politician.

Similarly, much to my dismay, the same guideline applies to the Church’s official position on the war in Iraq. While I firmly believe the Pope and most bishops believe the war is immoral, in light of the above, I am forced to admit that there has been no unanimous consensus given and therefore I feel I can no longer claim the Church is infallibly teaching that the war in Iraq is immoral. Additionally, She has not unanimously called for the explicit assent of the faithful on the matter of war in Iraq (even though one bishop has). Therefore, I believe the Church has not made a “definitive and absolute” statement on the war in Iraq and until when and if she does, I can only assume that what I have heard from bishops around the world and the hierarchy of the Church, is merely their personal opinions regarding the justification for war.

I hope this better explains my position on this matter.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 21, 2004.

"Canonist Dr. Edward Peters"....

-some matters are spiritual in nature, transcending man; transcending law...

-relativistic legal argument from a canonist is what it is... A well informed conscience requires MORE input to assure Truth is ascertained in addition to checking all conclusions against Church teaching in accord with the Magesterium...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), May 22, 2004.

Ed,

Lumen Gentium identifies three categories of teachings. The first category, infallible teachings, can be promulgated in three ways: extraordinary papal magisterium (i.e., "ex cathedra"), extraordinary universal magisterium (i.e., ecumenical councils), and ordinary universal magisterium (i.e., all the bishops teaching a position as definitively to be held). Note that the English translation of Lumen Gentium on www.vatican.va doesn't include the word "absolutely".

The second category is the ordinary episcopal magisterium, which is not infallible. Lumen Gentium says: "In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent."

The third category is the ordinary papal magisterium, which is also not infallible. Lumen Gentium says: "This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking."

My position is that Bishop Sheridan's teaching falls into the second category, and that the Catholics in his diocese are bound to accept that teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. In short, it falls into a category below infallible, yet above "(optional) personal opinion."

As for the war on Iraq, I believe the Pope's teachings on it are a matter of his personal opinion. This is because I read about them in the newspapers, yet I cannot find any remotely official promulgation of them, e.g., on the www.vatican.va website. However, the U.S. Bishops have a number of official teachings on the Iraqi war, on www.usccb.org and on diocesan websites, that also fall into the second category.

-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 22, 2004.

This is because I read about them in the newspapers

What you read in the newspapers were speculations.

-- Bill Nelson (bnelson45-nospam@Hotmail.com), May 23, 2004.

Mark, in Lumen Gentium, even the very sentence before your example for the “second category” which says, “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.” states, “Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth.” If bishops are in communion with the Holy Father, then it is safe to assume they are in communion with each other. Clearly to me this sentence indicates that only those teachings accepted and espoused by any and all bishops, in communion with both, the other bishops and the Holy Father, are to be accepted and adhered to with religious assent by the faithful.

Before the next U.S. election you will probably get a few more bishops stating the same thing that Bishop Sheridan has, just as you will have more Bishops stating they will give communion to politicians who support abortion. Until a “definitive” (clear, concise, exact, absolute, complete, decisive, exhaustive and unambiguous) teaching is made, I will not get too concerned about what bishops have to individually say about the matter. Without hesitation, I would also suggest to the Catholics of Bishop Sheridan’s diocese to vote their conscience in the upcoming U.S. Presidential election and let Our Lord and not Bishop Sheridan, decide who and who is not, in a state of mortal sin for doing so.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), May 25, 2004.