I never understood the squeemishness of the Catholic heirarchy. Being raised in a Catholic household myself, it was apparent to me pretty early on thta many traditions of the Catholic Church no longer follow anything that the Bible had prescribed. The Church had gone rogue. Happened a few hundred years after JC, then got really bad in the middle ages. They now have no moral authority over anything. Evolution? They bought it. Global warming? Bought that too. Just no bearings whatsover anymore. That being said, they have a few things correct to this day. The trinitarian nature of God. The evil of abortion. But yet, they waiver, and allow for the voting for pro-abort politicians based on other social issues. What exactly could possibly be more grave than killing babies?The relationship of the Catholic Church with conservatives and the Republican party is a very conflicted one. The institutional Church is probably second only to academia in glomming onto every new bit of left wing lunacy that comes bouncing down the pike. The Church has, however, as a whole been stalwart on life and family issues. Unfortunately, the opposition to abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and gay marriage, indeed one could say based on these issues the defense of Western Civilization, places them at loggerheads with their emotional allies: liberal democrats.
In the 2004 election the Heirarchy was taken aback by demands of conservative Catholics and conservative non-Catholics alike that they adhere to their own rules in regards to support for abortion...
Having been burned in 2004, they became too cute by half. In 2007 a pamphlet was issued called Faithful Citizenship. In this document or bishops managed to make voting for any candidate acceptable while appearing to condemn abortion across the board:
34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, 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.
35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
Essentially, this construction allows you to take any social ill and elevate it above abortion. (emphasis mine)
In essence, by watering down their standars and not drawing a line in the sand on this one issue, they have allowed politicians to be elected that would like nothing more than to foist FOCA on the 50 states, and have thus become complicit in what is coming down the pike. There is simply no excuse for this. In any case, the article then concludes, similar to my thoughts on the subject:
In a quest to be invited to the right parties and seen with the right people our own bishops stand condemned of being complicit in the abortion of about one million children each year by continuing to allow pro-abort Catholic politicians to receive the Eucharist and by failing to teach the simple truth from the pulpit: that besides the horror of infanticide and euthanasia all other issues pale by comparison.
