AmericanPapist Comments
Reading the Youtube combox is like going down the rabbit hole.
On the Hugh Hewitt show tonight he said "You can't support a candidate who wants to go on full scale war against the unborn."
Bishop Finn, we need you in New York!
Eeeee-GADS!!!
Well, I'm really happy the way the bishops have been defending the faith in the public square as of late, but I'm not sure how to feel about this. I'm afraid this gives folks more ammo to marginalize religion. Maybe this was the right time/place, but I'm not so sure.
Isn't his use of the word "participate" part of the excommunication language from the CCC
lcb,
Let's see what happens in November after the USCCB meeting.
I am also proud of the way many of our bishops have spoken out this year in the elections, especially of my bishop Bishop Finn. Hopefully their example will help mold and embolden the USCCB in the future.
Oh man, I just vomited all over the floor due to this post. Thanks a lot.
One can only hope that Matt K. used that moment to reflect on his seeming inability to disagree with this post without resorting to spewing sacrastic tales of figurative bodily functions.
Thank you, Bishop Finn, for being a brave voice fo the unborn.
I did reflect on it, then I dry heaved a couple more times after I remembered what is implied by this post.
Implying that eternal damnation is the consequence of a vote for Barack Obama is absolutely wrong. The Gospel ought not to be cheapened and politicized like that. Abortion is a terrible sin, but to suggest that a vote for Obama is a denial of that basic fact is so completely wrong, it strains credulity. That is to say, I suspect that nobody actually believes this fact -- rather they see it as an excellent tool to get their fellow Christians to vote Republican. If you do believe it, perhaps you have been spending entirely too much time in the echo chamber that is the right-wing Catholic blogosphere.
Barack Obama will become President; Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro. That is all I have to say about that.
I just realized that my wording was ambiguous. Instead of "I suspect that nobody actually believes this fact", I should have said, "I suspect that nobody actually believes this to be fact".
There is no such thing as right wing Catholic. There are conservative, I should really say preservative, Catholics. The preservative (in some instances traditional)
Catholics will ALWAYS be in control of the church. Your choice of a politician does not change this fact no matter how much you may want it to. To not be in union with the Pope and the Magisterium is to cease to be Catholic.
Dignum et justum est.
St. Paul: "hold fast to the traditions I have given you".
matt, do you believe we will be judged for our actions?
Matt,
Without getting caught up in the conservative vs liberal mudslinging, I think it is worth noting that pro-life partisan (Republican). It is not our fault that the party lines are split this way, but for those of us who vote on immutable and absolute principles such as the primacy of the right to life (as outlined even in our country's founding documents), we basically have no choice but to vote for the candidates who will work to uphold them, most especially for those who cannot defend their own life.
It seems to me that it is the opponents of the pro-life position that make it a question of party, not fundamental principles. They cheapen the this crucial discussion by dragging it down to the level of partisan politics. I can only assume this is because there is no justifiable rationale to defend supporting candidates with lamentable positions on these principles.
Geez.. that did not show the not equal symbol between pro-life and Republican. Let me be clear:
Pro-life is not a partisan (Republican) position.
fh in houston: I'm talking about Catholics who engage in right-wing polemics like our author Mr. Peters. I think it is perfectly apt to describe him as a "right-wing Catholic", and that people like him constitute the "right-wing Catholic blogosphere". But when I say "right-wing" I'm talking only about US politics here, not theology. My whole point is that you can be theologically orthodox and still vote for a Democrat who is pro-abortion, so long as your intent is not to support him/her qua a pro-abortion politician. This has been made clear repeatedly by bishops and so it is appalling when Mr. Peters suggests to the contrary.
Ambrose, I sympathize, I am just a more pragmatic voter and I worry about the entire spectrum of issues. I'm also not wholly convinced that criminalization is going to be more effective in reducing the number of abortions than a focus on supporting & helping mothers who are contemplating an abortion -- though criminalization is, sadly, necessary.
There are people on both sides making this an issue of party, and my original complaint is that Mr. Peters, by making this post, is one of them.
Sorry, I'm not sure why my whole post came out in bold.
Supporting Abortion is wrong.
Voting for a pro-abortion candidate is supporting Abortion.
Barack Obama is a Pro-abortion candidate.
Therefore, voting for Obama is Wrong.
That it is good to vote for McCain doesn't necessarily follow from this argument. However, this fact remains: voting for Obama is WRONG.
I don't care what political party Obama belongs to; he supports Abortion. End of Discussion.
Matt,
Doubtless this is a less-than-ideal forum for an extended discussion, so my apologies in advance. :)
I think it is maybe a bit unfair to implicitly characterize those who vote based on life as not worrying "about the entire spectrum of issues." I (on my blog), many of our bishops, and many others have gone to some lengths to respond to this. It seems to us that life, especially life in respect to the unborn killed through legal abortion on demand, outweighs the other issues.
I (and others, of course) would also suggest that caring for mothers in need is in no way opposed to the criminalization of on-demand abortion. I think it is quite the opposite, in fact, given the terrible emotional (and sometimes physical) state that abortion leaves these would-be mothers in. Making abortion an easy option is not fair to them, and it is a cheap way for our society to excuse ourselves of caring for both the mothers and their children.
Anyways, I just don't see how taking a firm stance on life implies partisanship in any way. It is a weird American cultural/historical juxtaposition (pro-life & Republican), and it isn't honest to imply that (especially bishops) who prioritize life are being partisan. Maybe I'm missing their statements on supporting McCain and other less-Catholic Republican positions, but I doubt it. It seems more likely to me that accusing pro-lifers of being partisan is a red herring, a convenient (even if subconscious) way to dodge honest dialog on the issue that, as I see it, can only logically result in one conclusion.
"That is to say, I suspect that nobody actually believes this fact -- rather they see it as an excellent tool to get their fellow Christians to vote Republican."
Yeah, Finn sure is a tool of Republicans.
Now, excuse me while I pull me tongue out of my cheek.
Catherine, the problem in your syllogism is step 2: "Voting for a pro-abortion candidate is supporting Abortion." The spectrum of issues at stake in this election goes far beyond abortion (and these are still life-and-death issues: death penalty, war, etc.), and so to vote for a pro-abortion candidate is also in this case to vote for a candidate who (in my opinion) is vastly more capable of doing what is needed (aside from abortion). And so it gets down not to a matter of Catholic dogma but of personal political judgment -- thus it is not a sin to vote for either candidate unless your intent is to vote for someone with the hope that they will allow abortion.
Ambrose:
I don't mean to imply that you don't care about other issues. When I say I'm pragmatic, yes, I am implying that I have the proper weight of issues in my mind and that your weight is skewed. So, as I said to Catherine, and back to the main point I'm trying to make here (contra Mr. Peters), one's choice of whether or not to vote for Barack Obama is a personal political choice, not a matter of sin or no, unless one's intentions (I guess this bears repeating for the fourth time) are to elect someone specifically because they're pro-abortion.
Matt K,
There is a reason that the founding fathers put "Life" before "liberty" and "the pursuit of happiness": there is no freedom or pursuit for murdered American babies. Furthermore:
Protecting a baby is more essential than opinions on the economy.
Protecting a baby is more essential than opinions on when to exit Iraq.
Protecting a baby is more essential than opinions on illegal immigration.
Protecting a baby is more essential than opinions on health care.
Protecting a baby is more essential than opinions on how to preserve "mother earth."
So, all that being said, would you say that I am skewed in my thinking?
Matt,
Technical Problem: my argument is NOT a syllogism. A syllogism is comprised of 2 premises and 1 conclusion. Also, the terms aren't called "steps". Please note that there is a difference between Premises and Conclusions in arguments.
Moral Problem: The bishops are against life-and-death-issues such as the death penalty, war, etc. Why then, have they singled-out the issue of abortion? I think that their opposistion lies in the fact that abortion destroys absolutely innocent human life. Who cares if a baby's murderer is against capital punishment, war, etc? Those things matter ONLY to people who were allowed to live.
The enormity of the problem in ignoring such a fundamental right as the right to life clearly outweighs other "life-and-death issues", because this issues only matter if one is alive.
Hi Matt,
So the idea of number and kind doesn't work for you, right? I know it's hard to imagine millions of people; I have a hard time thinking about the 100 or so who work in my office. I often think about just how many people there are in this world and it can kind of freak you out. It's really hard to grasp that there are that many individual humans who have their own unique soul and life experiences. So we end up just talking about numbers, and they lose their significance in the process. But I think we must try.
We're talking about many, many millions--more than in the Holocaust, more than in the recent genocides, more than in the wars, capital punishment, border crossing, and so on. Imagine if NYC and Los Angeles were just wiped out. And you'd still have to keep counting. The scale of human life being lost to legalized abortion is almost incomprehensible.
In kind, we're talking about the most innocent, the most weak, the most unable to defend themselves, the ones who have absolutely no choice in the matter. In short, the ones who should have the most protection under law have the least.
I just don't see how that doesn't outweigh these other, albeit entirely valid, concerns. I don't see how it is I (and these many bishops and many priests and many regular Catholics) who has the relative weighting wrong.
In any case, I do see your point and actually am sympathetic, which I think is what I find unsettling about what His Excellency Finn said. Yet there are two considerations being overlooked perhaps in your line of thought.
First, we have a duty to rightly form our consciences according to our faith. We are culpable for our failure to do so and the resultant actions that stem from our malformed consciences.
Second, while outright support of a candidate's support for abortion would be more grave, there is something to empowering such a candidate to make those abortions possible through your support for them. There is culpability in that even if it is not as grave as personally supporting or willing those abortions.
So while what Bishop Finn said may have lacked nuance, it was essentially true--your choices in these matters are not just political, they are moral and carry with them moral culpability. The gravity of that culpability will of course vary from person to person.
Commenting by HaloScan
