Catholic Discussion of USCCB's "Forming Consciences in Faithful Citizenship"

Back in November I had posted the link to the USCCB's "Forming Consciences in Faithful Citizenship" with a request for your thoughts -- it didn't seem to provoke many comments, which may speak to either to a lack of interest, a lack of readership. Such is the reception of most USCCB documents.

At any rate, following is a brief compilation of responses to said document culled from the web:

• Reaction from Fr. Neuhaus:

  “Faithful Citizenship” is a carefully considered reflection on political responsibility, the difference between “intrinsic evils” and prudential judgments, and the ways in which conscience is rightly formed. Several news stories have highlighted that the bishops left “loopholes” or created “leeway” for Catholics to vote for pro-abortion candidates. That is not true. The document repeatedly and emphatically gives top priority to the protection of innocent human life in instances such as abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research.
  

  But, of course and of necessity, it also says: “In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.”
  

  The “conscience clause” is not a loophole but speaks to a solemn obligation. It is clear Catholic teaching that one must act in accord with conscience, even if one’s conscience is misguided. At the same time, one is obliged to form one’s conscience according to moral truth. It is also the Church’s teaching, reiterated in this document, that acting according to a rightly formed conscience is a matter that impinges upon one’s eternal salvation.
  

  It is obvious that some Catholics are, if not pro-abortion, at least of the view that opposition to abortion is trumped by other matters they consider more important, such as an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, their preferred health plan, or a Democratic victory in the presidential election. If knowingly and with full intent they collaborate in the intrinsic evil of abortion, they may say that the conscience clause provides them with a loophole. In such an instance, as “Faithful Citizenship” rightly underscores, they are provided only with the choice to surrender their soul’s salvation.

  
  
• Praise and Criticism for Lengthy US Bishops Statement on Catholics and Political Responsibility, by Matthew Cullinan Hoffman and Steve Jalsevac. LifeSiteNews. Nov. 16, 2007.
  

• Deal Hudson:

  Given that this document was written by a committee, I think that outcome is encouraging. It's too bad that a long list of prudential issues, commonly supported by the Democratic Party, are included, but that is to be expected until there are serious changes at the USCCB. . . .

  But the document has some serious theological muscle, which should be appreciated in the pro-life community.

  
  
• "Does it matter anyway?" Curt Jester November 14, 2007:

  This document does handle moral issues that are intrinsically evil much better and it is also much clearer what they are compared to other issues. The pro-life focus is quite evident throughout. It was of course mentioned in previous years, but there was much more confusion in regards to lesser moral issues. Last time around they even mentioned supporting Affirmative Action which I don't see is consistent in Catholic teaching by correcting one evil by using the same evil to racially discriminate against others. The first section of the document is fairly decent, but it demonstrates why documents written by committee are seldom very good. The last third though made me think that someone I had accidentally clicked onto a link and landed on a Democratic Party talking points page. All problems seemed to have a government solution (and Federal at that) and while subsidiarity is mentioned at the front of the document it is noticeably missing in essence in the rest of it. While many of the responses to these issues are prudential ones they are consistently ones championed by Democrats except perhaps on school choice.
  

  The real question though is does the document really matter? What was the last time to saw any Bishop's document at your parish and how likely will it be that many if they saw this semi-large document would read through it in the first place.

  
  
• Impressions of "Faithful Citizenship", by M.Z. Forrest. Vox Nova November 16, 2007:

  The highest praise folks seem to give it is that it doesn’t get anything wrong. It purports itself to be voting guide, but it is pretty much a restatement of the USCCB’s domestic policy agenda. I don’t have a problem with that policy agenda, but I also don’t see any particular party’s candidates opining to bring back racism or remove the last vestiges of it. (This doesn’t mean someone can’t make a second or third order argument over the matter. That kind of reasoning has its own problems that I won’t go into here.) One thing the guide doesn’t do is provide manifest conclusions over which candidates, as in putative ones informed by watching American elections over the past two dozen years, one should seek to elect.

  
  
• "Voting and Salvation: Thanks, but No Thanks" - Michael ("Catholic Anarchist" Iafrate) responds to what he reads as an inordinate emphasis placed on the act of voting.
  

• Archbishop Chaput Not Satisfied With Proposed New USCCB Document on Voting, by Jay Anderson. Pro Ecclesia October 31, 2007:

  . . . if the Holy Father, in the context of addressing the responsibilities of the Catholic faithful in the public square, has chosen to describe certain public policy issues as being "not negotiable", surely a new USCCB document addressing the responsibilities of the Catholic faithful in the public square should at least make note of the fact, right?