Theocrat at work

Erin,

I would not go the formal, mediate, immediate route. I would instead opt for Can 1369:
Can. 1369 A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.

The use of cooperation in interpreting Can 915 seems to be making that cannon juridicial. It isn't. Can 1369 is juridicial and gets to the big problem with politicians and abortion and that is "gravely injuring good morals."

Problems with personally opposed? Not really. I could think of more issues regarding cooperation. I think there was a paper by Cardinal Dulles not too long ago that stated remote material cooperation in abortion could be justified depending on what else was in the bill.

Maybe I should step back and say that the cooperation argument makes me nervous, particularly mediate and immediate, because at that point why would latae sententiae excommunication not be invoked? Canonist Ed Peters claims there is no support for that, and he is stong proponent of using Canon 915. So then we move to Cardinal Ratzinger's letter to the bishops:
Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist.
This formal cooperation is obviously with abortion, but I think it needs to be understood as under point #2 in the letter:
"...In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propoganda campaign in favour of such a law or vote for it’” (no. 73).

ISTM the greater issue the immediate act of advocacy and not so much trying to connect the legistlator's act with a specific abortion.

watsy, as to the Vatican's opposition to the war in Iraq, I believe it is based on general opposition to war in general (even WW II) and on the fear that Iraqi Christians, of all stripes, will be made to suffer terribly for it, i.e., that Christians will be murdered, persecuted and driven out. That fear has proven true. But the Church does not say its opposition overrides obligations of lawful civil authority.

Some Democrats, atheists and RC Church-haters who are without ethics love to say that the war has been labeled "unjust" by JP II and/or B XVI, i.e., they falsely claim that it has been so labeled and that, therefore, RCs must oppose the war and thus vote Democrat. I am not saying anyone in this thread is ethically challenged--many people simply believe it because it is repeated so often "it must be true."

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
2308 "All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."

It would be difficult to deny that #2308 applies to the war in Iraq. Twelve years of incompetent, powerless, costly (billion$), corrupt efforts by the U N to make Saddam allow inspections that would demonstrate his promise to destroy all his weapons of mass destruction which he in fact had and used; the Clinton Administration's unequivocal assurance that Saddam still had them and would use them again, supported by the intelligence agencies of other countries well into the Bush Administration; the Clinton Administration's establishment of U S policy seeking regime change in Iraq; the Islamist demonstration of ACTUAL WAR against us, before, during and after 9/11; and the Congress of the United States authorizing the war on terror after 9/11.

watsy, that sounds like a #2308 scenario to this Catholic. The Church's traditional "just war" criteria, which no one is unaware of, are found in #2309 (which, BTW, I read as condemning the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Kosovo).

#2310 says that authorities have the duty to impose on citizens the obligations necessary for national defense. "Those who are sworn to serve their country in the armed forces are servants of the security and freedom of nations. If they carry out their duty honorably, they truly contribute to the common good of the nation and the maintenance of peace."

There is much more on this subject in the Catechism, watsy, which you can look up for yourself. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm. My point is that, as Simon mentioned, you indeed were not wrong when you said, "I thought that they had a Just War doctrine. If they don't have any teachings on the morality of war, maybe it's time that they came up with one and applied that teaching to the Iraq War and all future wars."

In short, there is a Church position on all war, but, like its position on abortion, it doesn't lend itself to Bush bashing.