Faithful Citizenship in DC
St. Matthew’s Cathedral in Washington DC is hosting what promises to be an extremely interesting lecture series during the month of October, centered around the USCCB’s Faithful Citizenship document. Given the location, and the diverse group of parishioners, there could be some fireworks! Anyway, for anybody who might be interested, here are the topics, times, and dates:
(1) An Introduction to the Faithful Citizenship Document and its Historical Background. October 1 and 2.
(2) Why Should Catholics Participate in Public Life? October 8 and 9.
(3) What is the Common Good? October 15 and 16.
(4) How to Inform Your Conscience. October 23 and 24.
(5) Reflecting Christ in the Public Square. October 29 and 30.
The talks are presented twice each week, on Wednesday lunchtime (12.45-1.30pm) and Thursday evening (7-8pm). Mark your calendars!
Comments are closed.
Where’s St. Matthews?
I led one of these at my parish during the last presidential campaign. The president of NRLC showed up, with her son-in-law, and with a stack of Catholic Answers brochures in hand, ready to subvert authentic Catholic teaching.
Good luck to whoever is leading these meetings.
I am doing a lecture on the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship” document too, the Wednesday before the elections. Fireworks are always expected… red, white, and blue ones. ;)~ –jn
Iafrate,
It isn’t too good of a sign of members of the “Pro-Life Community” feel so uncomfortable with our Bishop’s official teachings that they have to counteract by handing out their own tracts from non-profit entities.
–jn
The “Pro-Life Community” have been shameless political bed buddies with the Republican party for over a quarter of a centurty, doing all kinds of sordid favors– for precious little in return.
Poor Catholic Answers. You guys make it sound like they purposely try to misrepresent Catholic teaching. Despite what deficiencies you might think they have, they do a lot of great work and they have the support of many Bishops and priests. And if they were really so subversive I think they would have been corrected by somebody by now.
And if they were really so subversive I think they would have been corrected by somebody by now.
I don’t know that the charge would be subversion. But they seem to have a political agenda (conservative Republican).
David,
I enjoy very much their magazine “This Rock”, and as far as I see it the magazine has no political agenda. They’re a group of people devoted to Catholic apologetics and evangelization.
Maybe their voters guide isn’t complete – I actually haven’t read it. But I’m sure that they would not mind correcting the guide if they really were mistaken about something.
Poor Catholic Answers. You guys make it sound like they purposely try to misrepresent Catholic teaching.
There is no need for additional voter’s guides. The USCCB provides one. If they really want to provide “Catholic Answers,” they could provide a link to the USCCB document.
And if they were really so subversive I think they would have been corrected by somebody by now.
During the last election, the USCCB issued a press release telling Catholics to avoid other voting guides and to use “Faithful Citizenship.” A line saying basically the same thing was included in this most recent version of the document.
MJI, are you referring to paragraph 8? Because I think you are mis-characterizing what paragraph 8 says. Paragraph 8 encourages voters to seek out other resources that have been approved by their bishops, their state council, and the USCCB. The language does not say the ‘FC’ is all you need. In fact, it goes on to say
This statement [paragraph 8] is intended to
reflect and complement, not substitute for, the ongoing teaching of bishops in our
own dioceses and states.
I read this to mean that if a Bishop wants to include other voter’s guides within his own diocese, and you are a member of that diocese, then you should seek out and read what your Bishop recommends.
Zach: I do believe they are purposely distorting Catholic teachings. They are bright people. They have some understanding of moral theology. They know they are writing hogwash with one aim only: to persuade Catholics to vote Republican. I find them quite scandalous.
MM: What is it, exactly, that they have written that is “hogwash” and so scandalous?
Zach,
As I see the Catholic Answers voters guide, it says to rank the candidates on the five “nonnegotiable issues” (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, and same-sex marriage) and vote for the candidate that ranks better, or if they are both bad, vote for the lesser of two evils. It strikes me that that’s a tremendous oversimplification compared to something like “Faithful Citizenship.”
Suppose, in this time of economic crisis, a person is sincerely convinced that electing McCain will lead to a repeat of the Great Depression, and in addition, more (unjust) wars, the rich getting even richer and the poor poorer, a continued concentration of power in the hands of the president unlike the founders intended. Apparently none of that could be counted
Zach: (i) the restriction of non-negotiables to only five, categories which do not overlap with the USCCB’s list of currently-relevant intrinsically evil acts; (ii) the failure to distinguish between formal and remote material cooperation in voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsically evil act.
I really hope this scandalous guide is not available in any Catholic church this year.
Poor Catholic Answers. You guys make it sound like they purposely try to misrepresent Catholic teaching.
Maybe if they didn’t focus group test terms and slogans before they use them, they would be held in higher regard. Did Jesus focus group test the parables?
I’m wondering where the word ‘non negotiable’ is to be found in the bishop’s guide. It appears to be an authoritarian term cooked up by Orange County’s #1 Catholic, Karl Keating and parroted by tools like Lone Star Jimmy Aikin and the other usual suspects. It seems to me that if the bishops themselves considered abortion or any other issue non negotiable (in terms of voting), they could just say so without risking their tax status and muddying the waters with social justice trivia. I’m sure there are several bishops who would like to do just that but they are apparently overruled by the majority.
“As I see the Catholic Answers voters guide, it says to rank the candidates on the five “nonnegotiable issues” (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning, and same-sex marriage) and vote for the candidate that ranks better, or if they are both bad, vote for the lesser of two evils. It strikes me that that’s a tremendous oversimplification compared to something like “Faithful Citizenship.” ”
Aditionally, it does not call into consideration the prudential weighing of the candidate’s real power and/or commitment to effect change in these areas.
Remember: we got O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter and almost Meiers over the years.
Paragraph 8 encourages voters to seek out other resources that have been approved by their bishops, their state council, and the USCCB. The language does not say the ‘FC’ is all you need. In fact, it goes on to say
“This statement [paragraph 8] is intended to
reflect and complement, not substitute for, the ongoing teaching of bishops in our
own dioceses and states.”
I read that to mean diocese and region-specific voters guides such as the one put out by my diocese through the West Virginia Catholic Conference. These have ecclesial approval, unlike Catholic Answers.
Slightly off-topic but to expound on my previous post–about a year ago when it looked like Giuliani would be the Republican nominee, I heard a caller on Relevant Radio ask Fr. Frank Pavone what to do if it was Giuliani vs Democrat. He said to consider “the party” at that point and not the candidate. In other words if the GOP ran a proabort, gay loving, stem cell research loving, thrice married ex-Catholic candidate, Catholics would be obligated (in Pavone’s opinion) to vote for him as long as he’s from the right party. Almost threw up a little in my mouth when I heard that.
Some bishops have permitted (and encouraged) distribution of the CA guide. So it’s not a verboten document, as some here claim. Depends on the diocese.