On the matter of endorsing political candidates

CFC WILL NOT ENDORSE ANY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE

Related cbcpnews item here: ‘Mainstream’ CFC will not endorse candidates

In this memo CFC merely clarifies its stand to remain non-partisan, to avoid confusing its position with that of the breakaway group who insists on using the CFC name in some form. From a prerogative point of view, it is acceptable for a Catholic lay organization to either support or refrain from supporting particular candidates. As long as it's the official stand of the leadership, I would say it falls under a matter of legitimate prerogative. Of course if there is a particular endorsement, it goes without saying that it should never carry any element of coercion to its members. Endorsement or no endorsement, the bottom line is that in the final reckoning, it is still the individual's conscientious choice that must be respected. In the contentious matter of selecting the best political candidate, reasonable people can come to different conclusions.

The matter is different though, when we talk of an official endorsement coming from the Catholic clergy. The danger lies when such an endorsement is perceived to represent an official Church stand that the faithful must follow. To my knowledge, there is no allowance in the Church's principles for political partisan endorsements. The Church as a matter of principle avoids endorsing particular candidates for public office, as the matter of voter's choice rests upon contingent and controvertible matters that are beyond the scope of certainty as it relates to the articles of faith. It is the role of the Church however, to issue moral guidelines for arriving at a conscientious choice in line with Catholic teaching.

Here are some profitable readings along the line.

DOCTRINAL NOTE on some questions regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life

- A document released in 2002 by the Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith, headed by then Cardinal Ratzinger. An interesting portion of the document talks about "moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation". Thus we infer that that voting for persons who unquestionably hold such adverse positions goes against a conscientious Catholic choice.
/
A Catechism on Family and Life for the 2010 Elections

- The voters guide released by the CBCP Episcopal Commission on Family and Life, which is rather heavy in its admonition against voting for candidates who promote contraceptives. Coincidentally, when the document was released last December 27, 2009, all the popular leading presidential candidates changed their tune and withdrew their support for the RH-bill. Interesting coincidence.
/
Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics

- A good explanation by Catholic Answers on the Five Non-Negotiable Issues
/
Abortion Is the Black Hole of Moral Issues

- A great explanation by Jimmy Akin in his featured article for Catholic Answers, explaining Cardinal Ratzinger’s "Proportionate Reasons".
/
Voters Guide, NOT!

- And lastly, a Voters Guide for the Not-so-Serious Catholics
/

10 days to go and I am still undecided. Sigh.

Voters Guide, NOT!

Agonizing over the decision whom to vote for in the coming elections?
Here is a handy voter's guide from the Curt Jester :-)

Voter's Guide for Cafeteria Catholics
by Jeff Miller (reprinted with permission)

This voter's guide helps you cast your vote in an manner consistent with the beliefs that you already hold. It helps you avoid choosing candidates who hold opinions opposite of your own and to avoid just voting with an alleged Catholic conscience as dictated by a male hierarchy.

On most issues that come before voters or legislators, the task is selecting the most effective strategy that justifies your own opinion. The task can include selectively using magisterial teachings to comply with your personal magisterial teaching.

But some issues concern “non-negotiable” moral selections that do not admit of exception or compromise. One’s position either accords with those principles or does not. No one endorsing the wrong side of these issues can be said to act in accord with your moral norms.

This voter's guide helps you to identify your five issues involving “non-negotiable” moral suggestions in current politics, and helps you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national, state, or local offices.

You should avoid to the greatest extent possible voting for candidates who endorse or promote concepts against your view of things. As far as possible, you should vote for those who promote policies in line with your world view.

THE FIVE NON-NEGOTIABLE ISSUES

These five current issues below concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those which fundamentally conflict with your own moral view.

1. _________________________
2. _________________________
3. _________________________
4. _________________________
5. _________________________

Simply fill in the blanks. Suggestions are minimum wage, national healthcare, War for oil, etc. You might consider adding a traditional Catholic moral suggestion such as abortion. Remember your definition for reducing abortion is not limited to actually passing laws to restrict abortion but can easily include economic issues.

THE ROLE OF YOUR CONSCIENCE

Conscience is like an alarm and when it goes off do as most of us do and hit the snooze button and send your conscience back to sleep.

WHEN YOU ARE DONE WITH THIS VOTER'S GUIDE

Please do not keep this voter's guide to yourself. Read it and fill out your five moral suggestions. Then give this voter's guide to a friend, and ask your friend to read it and pass it on to others. The more people who vote in accord with your moral compass the better. After all who has the greater teaching authority - the Bishops in union with the Pope or yourself?

/end

Now for the REAL Voters guide for SERIOUS Catholics, click here.

On the Courage of Conviction and Humility

On the Courage of Conviction and Humility
(posted for CatholicFriends)

When Kruschev pronounced his famous denunciation of the Stalin era, someone in the crowd at the Congress Hall hollered; "Where were you Comrade Krushchev, when all these people were being slaughtered?"

Kruschev stopped, looked around the hall, and said: "Will the man who said that kindly stand up!!!".

Tension mounted in the hall. No one stood up.

Then Kruschev said: "Well, you have your answer now, whoever you are. I was in exactly the same position then as you are now".
/

A Catholic politician in the Philippines has actively supported a pending legislation that would require the government to promote contraceptives and heavily subsidize them out of public funds. Now he has suddenly been thrust into the limelight as presidential timber in the coming elections. The Bishops have admonished him to reconsider and renounce his support of anti-life legislation. On the other hand, his pro-choice liberal supporters strongly urge him to ignore the clergy and stand fast to his principle. If he heeds the Bishops, he could lose face among his liberal supporters and be accused of not standing up for his convictions to gain political expediency. Either way, he could lose face. But what does his conscience tell him?

Major decisions always carry serious consequences. In Kruschev’s era, lives may be at stake. In today’s political arena, projection of public reputations leading to outcomes of elections may be at stake. If a public figure exhibits inconsistencies, then his political ambitions may be lost. But “for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mk 8:36). Would one rather protect his reputation before the public but lose his reputation before God? How should one’s inconsistencies be viewed? Shouldn’t one rather be inconsistent with ones self rather than be inconsistent with the Truth?

That is why the courage of conviction comes with humility. Today’s Gospel (Mk 9:30-37) is a precise lesson in humility. The Apostles were arguing among themselves who was the greatest. They have preached the kingdom of God, performed miraculous cures, and have expelled demons. Yet they still lack the most important quality of all: humility.

One can never have the courage of conviction without humility. External appearances do not have any bearing with true courage and conviction, rather: “the things that come out from within are what defile.” (Mk 7:23). We must face the truth with courage and humility that comes from the inside.

A story is told of Abraham Lincoln who was then accused of being two-faced. Lincoln indicated his very plain, homely face and replied: “If I had another face, do you think I’d wear this one?”

On forgiveness

I quote Henry Nouwen who says that “forgiveness has two qualities: one is to allow yourself to be forgiven, and the other is to forgive others”. The first quality is harder than the second. It may put one in an irrational defensive mode where one might say “I didn’t do anything wrong, I don’t need your forgiveness”. We have ALL sinned against each other in one way or another, some more grievous than others, which calls for a contrite and deep examination of conscience. True restoration begins with the person.

On the subject, I received the following insightful piece in the mail, courtesy of my good friend Juni A.
/
FORGIVING
Author Unknown
May 24, 2009

The most creative power given to the human spirit is the power to heal the wounds of a past it cannot change.

We do our forgiving alone inside our hearts and minds; what happens to the people we forgive depends on them.

The first person to benefit from forgiving is the one who does it.

Forgiving happens it three stages: we rediscover the humanity of the person who wronged us; we surrender our right to get even; and we wish that person well.

Forgiving is a journey; the deeper the wound, the longer the journey.

Forgiving does not require us to reunite with the person who broke our trust.

We do not forgive because we are supposed to; we forgive when we are ready to be healed.

Waiting for someone to repent before we forgive is to surrender our future to the person who wronged us.

Forgiving is not a way to avoid pain but to heal the pain.

Forgiving someone who breaks a trust does not mean that we give him his job back.

Forgiving is the only way to be fair to ourselves.

Forgivers are not doormats; to forgive a person is not a signal that we are willing to put up with with what he does.

Forgiving is essential; talking about it is optional.

When we forgive, we set a prisoner free and discover that the prisoner we set free is us.

When we forgive we walk in stride with the forgiving God.
/

Bull feathers

I came upon that expression while reading Bishop Thomas J. Tobin's recent column on gay marriage.
Let me first quote what Bishop Tobin enumerates as the "principal reasons why we are opposed to gay marriage".
/
...
First is our firm belief – based on the natural law, the Bible and consistent religious tradition – that homosexual activity is unnatural and gravely immoral. It’s offensive to Almighty God. It can never be condoned, under any circumstances. Gay marriage, or civil unions, would mean that our state is in the business of ratifying, approving such immoral activity. And as I’ve written previously: “The state shouldn’t be placed in that position, and as a citizen of the state I don’t want that imposed on me and my conscience. Neither should you.”

Second is the fact that gay marriage seeks to radically redefine the most fundamental institution of the human race, the building block of every society and culture. From the beginning, marriage has been defined as the stable union of man and woman, designed by God to continue the human race through the procreation of children. Homosexual relationships are not marriage – never have been, never will be.

Here let me explain the “champagne principle.” Not every wine is champagne. Champagne has certain very specific, universally recognized characteristics. If someone were to take a bottle of Chianti, label and sell it as champagne, they’d be arrested for fraud. In the same way, those who seek to redefine marriage – with its specific characteristics – and to usurp the title “marriage” for their morally bankrupt relationships, are committing an act of fraud. It’s insulting to those who have entered the authentic, sacred and time-honored institution of marriage over the years.
...
The third way in which gay marriage will affect you is its impact on religious freedom, including that of the Catholic Church.

A recent headline in the Washington Post demonstrates the problem: “Faith groups losing gay rights fights.” It goes on to give some examples of how the gay agenda is imposing itself on religious beliefs: a Christian photographer in New Mexico was fined because she refused to photograph a gay couple’s commitment ceremony; Christian doctors in California were obliged to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient; A Christian student group was punished because it denied membership to anyone involved in sex outside of marriage...
/
On others observation that: “The Church is losing its influence...and there’s nothing we can do”, Bishop Tobin replies: "Bull feathers". This is the first time I've heard of such an expression, and I am both amused and puzzled by it. For one thing, bulls don't have feathers, do they?

Ok, got it.

Read the full article here.

Surprised by sin

To capture the breadth, depth, and pervasiveness of sin, I propose that sin is simply the failure to bother to love".
- James F. Keenan, SJ

In his book "Moral Wisdom - Lessons and texts from the Catholic tradition", Jesuit theologian Fr James Keenan has the above interesting proposition.
He cites biblical support as he further expounds.
/
As the medieval theologians understood well, every narrative in the Gospel is not about sinners sinning out of their weaknesses, but out of their strengths.
When the publican and the Pharisee are praying in the temple, the sin of the Pharisee is in his strength (Luke 18:9-14). He specifically considers what he has. When the rich man steps over Lazarus and ignores Lazarus at the gate and in need, the rich man's sin is not in his weakness, but in his strength (Luke 16:19-31). He could have done something, he did not - he sinned, precisely out of his strength. The steward who asked forgiveness for his debt is forgiven, but he is punished because he does not forgive the minor debt by his own employee. Out of his strength, the steward is convicted (Mat 18:21-35). Think of the parable of the Good Samaritan: Where is the sin? Even the robbers who committed the crime of beating the poor man on the road to Jericho are ignored: the focus is on the Levite and the priest: they could have acted but they did not (Luke 10:25-37). They sinned precisely out of their strength. Or think of the Last Judgment. Note that the sheep and the goats are separated by what they could have done, and whether they did it. The goats ask: "but when did we not feed you? when did we not visit you?" (Mat 25:31-46)...

Our sin is usually not in what we did, not in what we could not avoid, not in what we tried not to do. Our sin is usually where you and I are comfortable, where we do not feel the need to bother, where, like the Pharisee...we have found complacency, a complacency not where we rest in being loved but where we rest in our delusional understanding of how much better we are than others. It is at that point of self-satisfaction that - like Speer, the Pharisee, the prodigal's older brother, or the rich man - we usually do not bother to love.
/
Some food for thought in this period of Lent.

CONSCIENCE TRANSPLANT

Last month Bishop Thomas J. Tobin of Rhode Island wrote up an imaginary interview with President Obama. which apparently stirred up some controversy.

This week he responds with:

Jesus Wasn’t Always Nice

quoted partly:
/
I do find it intriguing, though, that the critics of the Obama column were more offended by my writing than the fact that the President is using their tax dollars to destroy unborn children. (And now to engage in the destruction of human embryos in stem cell research.) But it still seems to me that if the President’s anti-life actions don’t stir up moral outrage in you, nothing will; if they don’t offend your conscience, you need a conscience transplant, my friend.

(read the rest here)
/

GO GO GO BISHOP TOBIN !!!

PRIMACY OF TRUTH (2)

"It is of course undisputed that one must follow a certain conscience or at least not act against it. But whether the judgment of conscience or what one takes to be such, is always right, indeed whether it is infallible, is another question. For if this were the case, it would mean that there is no truth - at least not in moral and religious matters, which is to say, in the areas which constitute the very pillars of our existence."

- Pope Benedict XVI (then Cardinal Ratzinger in his 1991 address: CONSCIENCE AND TRUTH)

That is a very good point, TE. I actually have problems understanding what is meant by the terms half-Catholics, progressive Catholics, thinking Catholics, liberal Catholics, conservative Catholics, whatever. Just being a plain, persevering Catholic is fine by me, and it is a choice to be one. When we choose to be a Catholic, we choose to be in unity with the body of Christ, known as full communion with the Church. It is a unity that must of necessity be unbroken by heresy or schism, and requires agreement on essential doctrine and practise. This is not to mean that we have to be in absolute uniformity in theology and usage, provided that essential unity is maintained. When Catholics find cause in their consciences to express dissent to the Church, it must be worthwhile to determine whether this dissent involves any essential doctrine or practise. In today's challenging times when the faithful finds themselves in constant deliberations on public issues that concerns their faith, it is of essence to take note of Pope Benedict XVI's address on the three non-negotiables in the public sphere:

/
As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable.

Among these the following emerge clearly today:

[FIRST NON-NEGOTIABLE]

- protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death;

[SECOND NON-NEGOTIABLE]

- recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family - as a union between a man and a woman based on marriage - and its defense from attempts to make it juridically equivalent to radically different forms of union which in reality harm it and contribute to its destabilization, obscuring its particular character and its irreplaceable social role;

[THIRD NON-NEGOTIABLE]

- the protection of the right of parents to educate their children.

These principles are not truths of faith, even though they receive further light and confirmation from faith; they are inscribed in human nature itself and therefore they are common to all humanity.

The Church’s action in promoting them is therefore not confessional in character, but is addressed to all people, prescinding from any religious affiliation they may have. On the contrary, such action is all the more necessary the more these principles are denied or misunderstood, because this constitutes an offence against the truth of the human person, a grave wound inflicted onto justice itself.

/

To choose to be Catholic, is to respond to the call to be “credible and consistent witness[es] of these basic truths”.

Five bishops speak out

"The time to prepare ... is now"

"Corruption in such an extensive degree in the Philippines is a crime that cries to heaven for vengeance. Corruption in this country has become endemic, systemic, from top to bottom in government. Perhaps they may be given the punishment they deserve by the human justice system, but that’s not enough. Someone else in the Higher Authority will punish them as they deserve,"

- Archbishop Lagdameo

Very good and well said, Bishop.

A standout though, is another well-said snippet from one of my favorite high school batchmates.

"We are not here to bring you peace. We are here to disturb you. I’m praying to God that after this meeting, may the Lord trouble you because the trouble that comes from the Lord is going to make you a better person and it’s going to make the country a better country."

- Bishop Soc Villegas

Let's hope and pray that a lot of people are troubled, especially those whose consciences are not "blinded through the habit of committing sin" (CCC #1791)

THE PRIMACY OF TRUTH

"If today you hear my voice, harden not your hearts" (Heb 3:15)

The primacy of conscience must lead us to the objective truth. It is the primacy of truth that we seek.

In a previous post here it is discussed how ones conscience can be erroneous.

When two persons debate on diametrically opposed positions on an issue, they cannot be both true at the same time, only one of them is. The other one stands only on a personal notion that he is correct. Conscience is said to be right or correct when it is in accord with objective truth. When there is disaccord between the two, it is called erroneous.

A good Catholic conscience can never accept a position of dissent against central Church teaching. Moral truth is the key to conscience, and this is very difficult to deny coherently.

For example, how can anyone deny the sacredness of life in all its stages? How can one deny the sanctity of the family as a domestic church? How can one deny the primary right of parents to educate their children? The moment one argues against these moral truths, the more one takes a relativist stance, farther and farther away from the objective moral truth. Catholicism is not a moral supermarket in which one can pick the stances that seem more acceptable to any individual. Rather, it is a religion that has the promise of divine guidance for its magisterium in moral matters, and that, after all, is a better guarantee than the rest of us can claim as individuals. What better guarantee do we need than Jesus himself who asserts : “I will send the Spirit of Truth, which proceeds from the Father" (John 15:26)

The Erroneous Conscience

Are we called morally good or bad when in striving to follow our conscience, we err?

There is an interesting development of theological opinion on the question.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) , distrusted human knowledge and believed that the root of sin is ignorance. He emphasized the virtue of humility and adherence to the law. Actions contrary to the law and its teaching, even though done out of ignorance, were according to Bernard, bad. Thus if we accept that telling a lie is always wrong, Bernard would say if we told a lie, regardless of our motivation, we sinned.

Theologian Peter Abelard (1079-1142), taught differently. He held that the will, in particular its consent, determines actions as good or bad. If we are in error, but we do not consent to it, there is no sin. Thus if we told a lie in order to protect the life of another, Abelard would call us and our action, good. Faced with the question whether the action from a sincerely erroneous conscience is a sin, Bernard says yes, and Abelard, no.

Upon the powerful influence of Bernard, who accused Abelard of 19 errors, the Council of Sens (1140) condemned Abelard, although his sentence was later lifted.

Later, Thomas Aquinas entertained the question whether a person is good when following an erroneous conscience. For Thomas Aquinas, conscience is the act of applying our knowledge of good and evil to what we do (or might do). So in order to know what is a good action or a bad one, one needs to understand how things are naturally ordered by God -- primarily what human nature is, and what things it needs and deserves. Thomas' question concerned sincerity and understanding regarding the error: Could one have known otherwise? Interestingly, Thomas did not call the person good who despite striving to know the right, followed an erroneous conscience; rather, Thomas argued that such a person is "excused" from blame.

By the 16th century, most theologians agree with Thomas, that a dictate of conscience must be followed under pain of sin and that an erroneous conscience in good faith is, at least, excused from blame. In 1690 Pope Alexander VIII condemned all those who taught that an invincibly ignorant conscience did not at least, excuse. Implicitly, Bernard's attack on Abelard is rejected.

We now see Vatican II upholding the dignity of the moral conscience, even when it errs from invincible ignorance. But it goes on to caution: "The same cannot be said of the man who cares little for truth and goodness, or of a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin" (Gaudium et Spes, 16).

Finally, Cathechism states:

1790. A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791. This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."
In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1755. A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756. It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

In conclusion, it must be noted that describing erroneous actions as "good", as contemporary relativists do, is rejected. Relativists rightly find goodness in the integrity of conscience, but they grossly overlook the need to evaluate what we do out of conscience and how we live. This simplistic description is favored by many in society today who praise people for following conscience but who refuse to measure the resulting activity; that each of us is considerably free from objective evaluation. A person who errs in good faith is a person who has struggled to find the right, has searched heart and mind, and in firm good faith and free will acted with conviction, albeit in error. This person is good, and what differentiates this person from another who strives in the same way but whose conduct is recognized as right is precisely the evaluation of the conduct as wrong. Calling the conduct wrong is the sufficient negative description for the activity of the erroneous conscience.
/

On Cooperating with Evil - a short discourse

In June 2005, the Pontifical Academy for Life, an arm of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, released a letter entitled, "Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived From Human Foetuses." Its purpose was "to clarify the liceity of vaccinating children with vaccines prepared using cell lines derived from aborted human fetuses." Although the document is specifically addressed to the pediatric vaccination question, it's treatise would certainly apply to all other issues which pose challenging tests to this principle of cooperation with evil.

The following excerpts are the related salient points of that Pontifical letter.

[begin excerpt]
The principle of licit cooperation in evil

The first fundamental distinction to be made is that between formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is carried out when the moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, sharing in the latter's evil intention. On the other hand, when a moral agent cooperates with the immoral action of another person, without sharing his/her evil intention, it is a case of material cooperation.
Material cooperation can be further divided into categories of immediate (direct) and mediate (indirect), depending on whether the cooperation is in the execution of the sinful action per se, or whether the agent acts by fulfilling the conditions - either by providing instruments or products - which make it possible to commit the immoral act. Furthermore, forms of proximate cooperation and remote cooperation can be distinguished, in relation to the "distance" (be it in terms of temporal space or material connection) between the act of cooperation and the sinful act committed by someone else. Immediate material cooperation is always proximate, while mediate material cooperation can be either proximate or remote.

Formal cooperation is always morally illicit because it represents a form of direct and intentional participation in the sinful action of another person. Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the "double effect" or "indirect voluntary" action), but when immediate material cooperation concerns grave attacks on human life, it is always to be considered illicit, given the precious nature of the value in question.
A further distinction made in classical morality is that between active (or positive) cooperation in evil and passive (or negative) cooperation in evil, the former referring to the performance of an act of cooperation in a sinful action that is carried out by another person, while the latter refers to the omission of an act of denunciation or impediment of a sinful action carried out by another person, insomuch as there was a moral duty to do that which was omitted. Passive cooperation can also be formal or material, immediate or mediate, proximate or remote. Obviously, every type of formal passive cooperation is to be considered illicit, but even passive material cooperation should generally be avoided, although it is admitted (by many authors) that there is not a rigorous obligation to avoid it in a case in which it would be greatly difficult to do so.
[end excerpt]

Note in the third paragraph above, it states that “Material cooperation can sometimes be illicit (depending on the conditions of the "double effect" or "indirect voluntary" action)”.

[begin excerpt]
The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect .
[end excerpt]

Additionally, it is pertinent to assess the possibility of scandal when applying the principles. The USCCB bishops directives for “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services” is a good reference point:

[begin]
#71 "The possibility of scandal must be considered when applying the principles governing cooperation.Cooperation, which in all other respects is morally licit, may need to be refused because of the scandal that might be caused. Scandal can sometimes be avoided by an appropriate explanation of what is in fact being done at the health care facility under Catholic auspices. The diocesan bishop has final responsibility for assessing and addressing issues of scandal, considering not only the circumstances in his local diocese but also the regional and national implications of his decision.”
[end]

A footnote to #71 gives a description of "scandal" quoted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil" [no. 2284]; "Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged" [no. 2287].

/
With these definitions in mind, the traditional teaching concerning cooperation in evil may be summed up according to the following principles. (1) Formal cooperation is never permissible because the intent that the sinful act occurs is itself an objective violation of God’s law. (2) Immediate material cooperation is never possible because by cooperating in the sinful act itself, one is also violating God’s law even though he cooperates for some other reason. (3) Mediate material cooperation may be permissible, provided that the action of the cooperator is not itself a violation of God’s law and provided that the cooperation is done for a proportionately serious reason. In deciding this last point, various factors must be taken into account: (a) the more serious the harm of the sin, the more significant must be the good sought to justify cooperation; (b) the more proximate or necessary the cooperation, the more significant must be the good sought. Further, the scandal involved in such cooperation must be seriously considered.

/

Conscience and the Denial of Sin

I once heard it said that if there is one thing worse than sin, it is the denial of sin.

But how does one come into a denial of sin?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, states:

“1792. Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.”,

herein which I will attempt to parse:

Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel

I surmise that ignorance is brought about when you are in the boondocks and isolated from the rest of humanity and civilization. No TV, no books, no teachers, and no Google. But for the greater mass of people, especially those who are in a position to make a difference in this day and age, ignorance can only be decidedly voluntary. One is supposed to be obliged in conscience to seek the truth and not be content with what is personally comfortable from a conveniently “practical” point of view, yet it is so convenient and comfortable to make a shortcut. I therefore call this conscience a quick and easy “Do-It-Yourself” conscience.

Enslavement to one’s passions

All slaves have masters, and in this case, the master is one’s passions. The distinction being that this is a self-inflicted slavery that shuts out discernment and with it – freedom. Indeed the flesh is weak, and that is why the Lord instructed us to pray “lead us not into temptation…”. On the other hand those who become slaves by choice invite temptation and then wallow in it, and therefore I call this conscience, a “pawned” conscience.

Bad example given by others

When “everybody” is doing it, it must be acceptable and therefore “right”. This is heightened by peer pressure within the close confines of one’s social circle, or even of one’s subjective and personal perception of what is considered acceptable by the larger social sphere. Notions of acceptability prevails and liberal fad rules. I call this conscience a “Popularity Contest” conscience.

Autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority

The conscience exists in a vacuum, whose discernment does not include an outside point of reference.
As a case in point, it is dangerous to choose a car without dutifully consulting car-buying guides and mechanics. In the spiritual sense where the stakes are much higher, it should be imperative to be even more conscientious in seeking guidance from external authorities, especially from those whose knowledge and wisdom is drawn upon a studied foundation of more than two-thousand years of consistent teaching. If we find ourselves disagreeing as Catholics with the teaching of the Church on a serious matter, it’s probably not the Church that’s wrong, the problem is much more likely with us. Maybe I’ll call this conscience a “clueless” conscience.

Lack of conversion and of charity

I have stated at the onset that the denial of sin may be worse than sin itself, and come to think of it, the only sin might be denial itself. The adamant refusal to be open to correction could be in fact the only barrier to conversion and charity. This is characterized by a spirited self-righteousness that can only be perhaps corrected by a bolt of lightning, which is not entirely impossible, to those of us who have heard of the road to Damascus. Anyway, a less dramatic conversion could just as well be effective, which is what all of us should be working at in this season of Lent. Also, the first among the St. Matthew’s Beatitudes is something to ponder at, as we all evaluate our spirited selves.

/