Tuesday, October 26, 2010

URGENT: Mass Catholics need help cracking the code of the MA Bishops Statement on the Election

This just in.    The Massachusetts Bishops Release a statement to give us guidance on how to vote in accord with Catholic teaching.

They said you need to vote in accord with Church teaching.   

There are certain moral issues that are fundamentally important.

Human rights should benefit everyone.  Nobody should be excluded. 

Our deeply-rooted concern for the common good has moved us throughout history.

The Massachusetts Bishops have convictions about voting which are bolstered by the innate sense of hope that has endowed the nation in good times and bad.

I know what you're asking.    What are they saying? Which candidates will best represent the culture that Catholics want to hand their children ?    

Here's what Catholics have got to do:  step up to the plate and share your vision of a better society at the polls.

Catholics are people of hope, they said.

Get it?

What's that you say?  Still don't know who or what to vote for?

Here's some more of the statement:

Hope is the Christian virtue that confirms our belief that we are never abandoned, that we are always loved by God.

We express these truths every time we extend our love to others as part of one big human family.

This same hope guides our civic involvement, they said.

See the lovely tapestry they're weaving?   (Is it me or does it have the stink of Bernadin?)

They were able to slip in some advice from Pope Benedict:   "participate in political life in a manner consistently in accordance with the Church's teachings, bringing well-founded reasons and high-ideals into the democratic debate"

They said for Catholics, voting is an exercise of reason inspired by faith.

You're vote has far-reaching consequences they warn.  There are moral consequences.   People
"should not be afraid to enter into a profound and ongoing dialogue, for the good of our civilization.”

I know you're anxious for the close.  Surely they have something profound to say for the good of our civilization, right?

Ready?

"Deciding which candidate in any particular race offers the best opportunity to take us in the right direction is not an easy task. Yet there is a measuring rod by which all electoral choices must be evaluated: will my vote enhance human dignity? Certain moral and social issues are fundamentally important, since human rights are at stake and must be protected to help democracy to flourish in a way that benefits every citizen. These include the defense of the sanctity of life, the family based on marriage between a man and a woman, religious freedom, and the well-being of the poor. As shifts in societal challenges are inevitable, it is also vital to determine from election to election which human rights face the greatest threat at the time of voting."


Their full statement can be found HERE

If you can crack the code, please call 1-800-SEDE-VACANTE.  

Operators are waiting for your call.

Thank you.

14 comments:

Jack O'Malley said...

Carol wrote: They said the issues are the sanctity of life, family based on marriage between a man and a woman, religious freedom and the well-being of the poor.

What mealy-mouthed episcopal puffery. No wonder the purpled pretenders are relegated to paving the sidewalks of Hell.

"Well-being of the poor?" The poor will always be with us. Anoint the feet of the Christ with rich unguent. Then pray for the poor.

Religious freedom? The sacrifce of the Cross precludes religious freedom. If the Cross is History, then all must ultimately believe. Else what is meant by "teach all nations"? Is Gettysburg history? Is Lepanto? Is the Milvian Bridge? The Cross and the Eucharist supercede the Old Covenant. The Cross redefines History. And History is ever present in the Eucharist. As Flannery O'Connor said, "if it isn't true, then the hell with it. "

What are the political ramifications of the Cross, the Eucharist? Vote for none of the bastards. Write in the Lord Jesus Christ.

At least it might feck up Tim Cahill's screwball campaign.

Carol McKinley said...

Jack - btw, nice work over on the commonweal puffery!

Much obliged.

Carol McKinley said...

Jack,

You are a feisty one tonight!

Did you miss this sentence:

"As shifts in societal challenges are inevitable, it is also vital to determine from election to election which human rights face the greatest threat at the time of voting."

Cormac said...

Perhaps the bishops' PR writer should be given a word count limit and reminded of the 5 W's of journalism to get to the point.

Anonymous said...

Bishop Coleman and McConnell signed this piece of trash?

I find that hard to believe.

Has anybody verified it with them?

TheLastCatholicinBoston said...

Its like you fall over-board in the middle of the ocean and rather tossing you a life ring, they offer to discuss your situation.

Jack O'Malley said...

You did a fine job on the commonweal crowd yourself. Kudos!

I didn't miss it but I wasn't sure what that turgid mess meant.

You were spot on in an earlier post - Catholics don't have a horse in this race.

Jerry said...

Human rights? We should first determine which of God's rights face the greatest threat at the time of voting, no?

As for human rights, the bishops mean ObamaCare. But there exists no right to taxpayer-funded medical care. Heck, there's not even a right to eat, if you consult St. Paul. One must earn his food.

To answer the human rights challenge of the bishops, know that ObamaCare denies you the basic right to use your earnings as you see fit. ObamaCare prohibits you from obtaining the best care money can provide, replacing it with government-determined care, including the rationing of same, which is denial of care. ObamaCare denies doctors the right to obtain the recompense they deserve for their work. The long-term effect of the latter will be fewer and less talented doctors. This will stifle improvements to care which would rightfully benefit all of us. ObamaCare is simply Socialism, the confiscation of your hard-earned private property for redistribution to favored classes.

A good vote, therefore, from the human-rights point of view, is for anyone who promises to repeal ObamaCare.

Anonymous said...

I like what they said on EWTN when a caller asked how they should vote, the preist said 'vote pro-life'.

Jasper

Anonymous said...

The late Archbishop Joseph Tawil, the Eparch (Bishop) of Newton for Melkite Catholics in the United States, co-signed statements by the Massachusetts Catholic Conference as a bishop in Massachusetts. His successors discontinued that practice. At first I was upset by the absence of the Melkite Eparch's name on such statements, now I am glad that they no longer sign onto them in view of the latest ones.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous was surprised the Bishop McDonnell signed the statement. When I read it, I thought that he wrote it.
Anon.2

kd said...

Their statement is as clear as mudd, ALL they have to do is practice their Religion & the Directives of Rome :
VATICAN, July 9, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) The appointment of Archbishop Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the Vatican’s highest court), is significant due to the fact that it is this congregation that oversees the distribution of Holy Communion; Archbishop Burke is perhaps the most vocal figure in the Vatican on the need to deny Communion to obstinately pro-abortion politicians.

The Code of Canon Law, in canon 915, states that “those who have been ... obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.”

While still a cardinal, the pope himself wrote to the United States bishops saying that a Catholic politician who votes for "permissive abortion and euthanasia laws," after being duly instructed and warned, "must" be denied Communion.

The current prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship, Cardinal Antonio Canizares, has also attested that canon 915 must be applied to pro-abortion politicians. Prefect emeritus, Cardinal Francis Arinze, balked at the notion that a cardinal was needed to answer the question, saying that even children at First Communion would insist that Communion should be denied to such individuals.

Many bishops ignore or even oppose this directive, affirmed repeatedly by numerous Vatican officials; but Archbishop Burke maintains that bishops have no choice in the matter.

"The Church's law is very clear," he told LifeSiteNews in January 2009. "The person who persists publicly in grave sin is to be denied Holy Communion, and it [Canon Law] doesn't say that the bishop shall decide this. It's an absolute."

By their actions you will know them.

Jack O'Malley said...

KD,

Good point about Cardinal Ratzinger's having written to the US bishops.

So why does Papa Ratzinger name Wuerl a cardinal when Wuerl explicitly refuses to deny communion to pro-death politicians in his archdiocese, the nation's Capital?

The Pharisees are in the ascendancy in the temples of the novus ordo.

Jerry said...

Good point about Wuerl, Jack. Wuerl is also a Dignity queen and a molester of children in the classroom (link). Giving him a red hat is an absolute scandal.