AmericanPapist Comments
Dude, that was a great ending.
This statement:
What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion in the past 35 years? Personally, we cannot conceive of such a proportionate reason.
gets to the very heart of the matter, if you are prepared to vote for Sen. Obama, you better be prepared to answer to the Lord when you meet him.
I have been waiting for this day for a long time - when our bishops will clearly and faithfully engage the public sector! Keep praying for them!
So the question is supposedly: "What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million children killed by abortion in the past 35 years?"
No, that is clearly not the relevant question. Suppose I said, "What could possibly be a proportionate reason for the more than 45 million people killed by unjust wars in the past 100 years?" because a presidential candidate clearly rejected the just war principles. Well, sure, it might get you thinking about the consequences of supporting evil. But clearly, the thing to weigh is not something about the past but what the likely effects of this or that candidate will be.
Let's suppose McCain get's to nominate a new Supreme Court justice in his first week, and they overturn Roe the next day (for the sake of argument). Suppose he also does the other things Priests for Life list as being within his power, continuing Pres. Bush's policies (click my "Homepage" to see).
How many of the more than 1 million abortions that would happen in 2009, following the trend of recent years, would be stopped? Probably not many. How many of the more than 5 million "projected" to take place during the next president's term? Perhaps some because with the overturn of Roe v. Wade, many states would outlaw or restrict abortion. However, it's hard to imagine that most of them would still take place, with those in states that have outlawed it traveling to nearby states to have their fetuses aborted.
Perhaps what the bishops mean is to think about the 45 million abortions that could happen in the *next* 35 years. How many of these would likely be stopped by Roe v. Wade being overturned and, say, 35 years of pro-life presidential support. Many, for sure, and that would be be a wonderful thing. But the sad thing is that it seems likely that the majority of those who want an abortion will go forward, finding a way in a legal state.
What am I rambling about? The point is: Do not oversimplify this. It's too important!
Building a Culture of Life is about more than laws. Of course, having a pro-life president with the Bully Pulpit, and especially Gov. Palin's witness in the spotlight could help. Having the laws of our country protect the unborn, or at least allow the states to do so, is morally imperative. But it's wrong-headed to think that the lives of 45 million are at stake in this election. We need to do much more than spend an hour in the ballot box, more than telling others to do the same.
No, we 70 million US Catholics need to step up and be willing to adopt these children--yes, the ones that don't look like you and the ones born with drug dependency and the ones born with serious mental and physical disabilities. And/or we need to do more to support our neighbors (and the people who live in the other neighborhoods) to raise their own children. They're going to need emotional support of friends and financial support as well. The pro-life movement is already beginning this work in the beautiful way with the pregnancy centers, but it's not enough--every family has a role.
If this is really the defining issue of our generation, than we better do more than cast a vote or put on a bumper sticker or write blog entries (do more without neglecting these latter things).
That is why it is a shame that the final Republican platform removed a statement about cooperating with all to reduce the incidence of abortions (see my "Homepage" for the full story).
And is it really inconceivable that effective policies to reduce poverty and improve access to healthcare might also have a substantial effect on reducing the horrifying number of abortions we expect in the next 35 years?
And what of the millions of children around the world who die each year of malnutrition and easily preventable diseases?
In a country just off our shore, children have been reduced to eating "mud cookies" to fill their stomachs. (See the link to my "Homepage") But that doesn't have anything to do with us, right? Unfortunately, we have played a role. Our US government has actively undermined Haiti's democratically elected government for the past 20 years (both parties), supporting coups rather than the stability of their constitutional government?
If you're not willing to look into this, I might not be surprised, but then please tone down the rhetoric against those who are unable to look the horror of abortion in the face.
In any case, suppose there was good reason to believe the pro-choice candidate would actively do things that would set our government on the path to helping these children rather than working against them? (I'm not sure whether Obama would, honestly, but then I'm confident McCain will not change course on foreign policy. And I'm not sure when Roe v. Wade will actually be overturned either.)
All I'm saying is there are enough horrifying statistics to go around to show the evils of either candidate. This election is not a straightforward choice.
But what we as Catholics should be doing to reach out to our neighbors in need is, happily, much more straightforward. So why don't we focus on the issues and what we can do personally, alongside our discussion of the voting question.
Hope someone finds the time to fisk the last three entries. Lots of errors surrounding a few truths.
Tim you're right that this is a much larger issue than just voting and that we must change our entire culture not merely a few laws. But that doesn't change the fact that voting for a candidate who supports intrinsically evil policies is a morally sinful act. We cannot commit a sinful act, even in the hopes of bringing about a good result.
Unless a candidate is advocating killing the poor and starving, I don't know how a person can morally justify voting for a candidate who bars unborn babies from their human rights and allows them to be murdered because he feels that candidate's plan for helping the poor is more prudent. The right not to be killed is a moral issue, the best method of helping the poor is a social and political one - they don't bear the same weight.
Ideally, every political candidate would run on a moral platform and we'd all be free to choose who we want based on how prudent we think their policies are. Unfortunately, until that happens, we are forced to choose the one with the least morally evil policies.
If you can't bring yourself to vote for the moral candidate because you feel his policies will be ineffective, write in a vote for someone who's policies match your own but doesn't support abortion (or some other intrinsically evil policy). Or don't vote at all and write to the two major parties explaining why you couldn't bring yourself to vote for either of them.
It would take several hours to point out all the errors of the last few posts.
Instead I'll start with the first line of the first post: tim, contained in abortion are all other injustices including war. Further, abortion is an active genocide. There are no issues in the last 35 years that equal abortion, nor any issues currently that are proportionate to abortion.
Genocide is stopped by actually stopping the genocide and a culture of life can not emerge until the greatest genocide in the history of the world is stopped.
Further, in no way can a pro genocide candidate bring about a culture of life.
I'll take this bit:
No, we 70 million US Catholics need to step up and be willing to adopt these children--yes, the ones that don't look like you and the ones born with drug dependency and the ones born with serious mental and physical disabilities.
One of the pro-abortion ploys is to say that if you don't adopt, your pro-life views are insincere. And unfortunately some in Catholic circles neglect to call bs. Imagine a Southern slave-owner in 1860, "Hey, your against slavery? Then buy the slaves and free them! Otherwise you anti-slavery stances is bogus." Or imagine a drug-decriminalizer today saying, "Your anti-drug? Then why haven't you volunteered one of the rooms in your house to be remodeled as a prison cell to relieve our over-crowded prisons?" The fact is, adoption is a calling, not an obligation, and has no business being touted as a prerequisite to combating abortion.
Laws (and precedents posing as laws) shape the contours of public discourse and culture, the ways people think, the possibilities they are open to.
As long as Roe v Wade stands, the pro-life movement is hamstrung not only in the legal battle but also in the battle for hearts and minds. People just assume and take for granted that that's the way it IS.
If Roe were to fall, it would have a ripple effect, not only on legal possibilities, but also on moral, psychological and cultural possibilities. Is it a sufficient goal? Nothing remotely like it. Is it a necessary and even crucial goal? Absolutely. It is a cornerstone in any cogent pro-life strategy.
Oh this is fantastic! I showed my dad who is a deacon and his mouth literally hit the floor when he read the letter. I think he is on the phone now talking to our pastor about how exciting this is.
And after reading it myself I also have a strange urge to send a card to Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden thanking them for giving our Bishops the opportunity to be proactive as opposed to remaining defensively reactionary. Wonder if anyone else had that feeling?
This is how God brings about good from evil.
SDG's is my quote of the day. Well said.
Now there's a conversation starter for when the bishops get together for their November meeting.
The heterodoxy being displayed here is breathtaking. I guess Church members no longer speak una voce on very fundamental matters. Tom
TJM: Is that your response to the three posts from Tim Huegerich? If so, it seems unhelpful.
The bishops' letter is right on, but why does it have to be written in "bishop-speak"?
I live in the KC-KS diocese and attend church in the KC-MO diocese, so I love and appreciate these bishops dearly, but will Joe Sixpack in the pew even make it past the first couple of paragraphs?
To be truly effective, this kind of letter needs to be short, sweet, and direct--not 16 dense paragraphs seemingly aimed at the theologically astute.
Thank you for your comments. I mean, the reason I was up late thinking and writing about this is that I take the bishops very seriously. My main point was supposed to be this (because I think my initial analogy obscured it). If you want to make the case clearly for voting for McCain, it should be about the effects of voting for him--not to pretend that that the 45 million victims of abortion will somehow be undone or vindicated by voting for him. Isn't it clearly sloppy logic to say that those 45 million abortions are somehow at stake right now?
SDG, I totally agree about the broader impacts of laws. I stand by my point that we should think carefully and be honest with ourselves about how much particular changes of law can do.
Scott W., I grant that something like adoption is a vocation and could be misguided to think of it elsewise. My point is that we should stop thinking of adoption as part of an argument for or against outlawing abortion. The problem is that everything gets viewed only in the frame of whether it supports the argument to vote one way or the other. My point is that the ocnversation has got to be broader. Not that everyone needs to adopt, but that we need to recognize our call to do more than vote--not only to resist the contraceptive mentality ourselves, but to reach out to our brothers and sisters contemplating abortion. Think about it--it's bad enough that more than 4000 each day *want* to abort their child, even if they were not able to do it (acknowledging that changing the law will help change these attitudes).
Don't take my word for it, check out paragraphs 26, 27, 86-90, 93 of JPII's masterful Evangelium Vitae (click "Homepage" for a link)
Practically speaking, the fact is that framing the discussion always in terms of who to vote for may not be very effective in changing hearts. We all know how it works--people come to a debate with their minds made up, just waiting for their turn to speak. No, it's my conviction that it's the unexpectedness of the consistent ethic of life, or of action in our daily lives to reach out to struggling families, that can change the hearts of those currently thinking of themselves as "pro-choice."
Zach, part of the reason we're not theologically astute is because bishops haven't been teaching us well. We need documents like this to lay a foundation for our Catholic understanding of why we're pro-life.
Of course, as you noted, we also need short and to the point instruction too. Hopefully your pastor will use the bishops' letter as a foundation for his Sunday homily and/or bulletin announcement, presenting it in a way that's most easily digestible for the people of your parish.
By the time a person gets a doctorate in anything, and I believe bishops are supposed to have a doctorate in theology or canon law or scripture, he is terminally infected with termpaperitis. Statements and more statements, erudite, footnoted and unread.
Reduce it to six bullet points and buy a page in the Kansas City paper, process en masse and mitred and followed by the Catholic people to the state legislature and give it to them engraved in brass. Make a scene. Don't just register your opinion. Make your voice heard.
Brian Walden,
Let me ask you a question about this thing of intrinsic evil. You say, "voting for a candidate who supports intrinsically evil policies is a morally sinful act." But according to Church teaching, that's not true if I don't have the intent of supporting the evil policy and if there are proportionate reasons for doing so. To my understanding, if we limit ourselves to Magisterial teaching of the bishops (rather than to, for instance, Catholic Answer's voting guide, which I am claiming is mistaken), the proportional reasons for voting for a pro-choice candidate need not be intrinsically evil policies.
What does "intrinsically evil" mean: "things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because
they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor" (Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, 22). This is an important moral category because it makes clear that we can never justify doing these things.
However, it does not follow that issues concerning intrinsically evil actions automatically trump other issues in a voting decision. Suppose that a candidate campaigns on a promise to invade and occupy Mexico without regard to the conditions of just war (note I'm deliberately making a hypothetical) but that candidate is the only one that completely opposes all intrinsically evil actions. For instance, say the other major candidate supports using torture (but also opposes abortion and other intrinsically evil actions). Surely it could be morally permissible in this situation to vote for the torture-supporter to prevent the huge loss of life certain to follow from the unjust war?
The point is--sure, you can make an argument that abortion should trump other issues in this election. But it doesn't follow from the fact that it is an intrinsic evil alone.
If we're thinking in Church time, we need to be careful about these issues. We can't adopt a logically shaky argument and somewhat distort Church teaching to suit a particular election. I see so much anger and frustration over the refusal of the bishops to adopt the line of the Catholic Answers voting guide (which is essentially that intrinsically evil issues trump all)--could it be that those appointed to be our spiritual pastors should be the ones we actually turn to for guidance, rather than working on the assumption that they are wrong? (Don't get me wrong, I believe the Kansas City bishops may be wrong in their prudential judgment. I intend to read their document in full (which I haven't yet) and try to understand.)
Another helpful perspective on this question linked to as my Homepage..
So the question comes down to whether proportionate reasons to vote for Obama exist in this particular election. I'm certainly not sure that there are because I'm not sure how good his policies will be.
But my point is that I don't see how we can dismiss the possibility of proportionate reasons so easily by citing the horrifying number of abortions: more than a million a year. The sad thing is that there are also a horrifying number of other easily preventable deaths.
According to Bread for the World (see my Homepage link), "In developing countries nearly 16 million children die every year from preventable and treatable causes. Sixty percent of these deaths are from hunger and malnutrition." And Gaudium et Spes (Vatican II document also called "The Church in the Modern World) reminds us "remember the saying of the Fathers: 'Feed the people dying of hunger, because if you do not feed them you are killing them,' (#69)
Obviously the question of solving hunger is complex, but I would say it is clear that our government is not fulfilling its role but on the contrary placing many obstacles, and worse. What I acknowledge I am less sure about is how much Obama would change these policies.
Tim, can you explain in more detail where you think the Catholic Answers Voter's Guide goes wrong?
It strikes me that by proposing the somewhat unrealistic hypothetical above, you are arguing as though Catholic Answers presents its list of "5 non-negotiables" as a universal principle of voting decisions.
And so you present a hypothetical situation in which the principle is difficult to apply, and the implicit conclusion is that the principle must be off-base.
But I didn't read the Voter's Guide that way. As I remember it, they note explicitly that their "5 non-negotiables" were chosen because of the sorts of policies that are currently at stake in the American political scene.
So it seems to me that a more fruitful mode of arguing against the Voter's Guide would be to show precisely how other issues, currently at stake in American politics, trump their 5 non-negotiables.
I took a look at the page you linked to and it seems that the writer "m" there is opposed to war and capital punishment in all cases, based on the principle of the sanctity of human life.
Whatever argument one makes for this position, it's a radical departure from 2 millenia of Christian tradition. So it's hard to see where exactly he's coming from and how his ideas are helpful for Catholics who wish to form their consciences according to the mind of the Church.
I think the heterodox know who they are without anyone being specifically identified. Tom
Tim Said: "Let me ask you a question about this thing of intrinsic evil. You say, "voting for a candidate who supports intrinsically evil policies is a morally sinful act." But according to Church teaching, that's not true if I don't have the intent of supporting the evil policy and if there are proportionate reasons for doing so."
I stand by my position. Voting for a candidate with intrinsically evil policies objectively sinful. Whether or not an individual is subjectively culpable is between him and God.
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship is not the Magisterium. If it is then the KC Bishops' statement that there are at this time no proportionate reasons for voting for a pro-abortion candidate is also Magisterial teaching.
For me, nothing erodes our human dignity more than murdering a class of people who are absolutely dependent on love from others for survival. I can always vote according to this principal with a clean conscience. Others may be able vote to justify a proportionate reason why some other evil is as grave as murdering a million innocent American children per year. God will know whether it's a truly proportionate reason or not. I'd rather save myself the mental gymnastics and trust our Bishops.
Brian Walden, you're just whistling Dixie to the Democrat posters here trying to salve their consciences. I wouldn't waste my breathe. Tom
Brian Walden,
As I understand it, Tim's comment about "a proportionate reason" comes straight from Cardinal Ratzinger operating as Prefect of the CDF. This is part of the document (much quoted in this Biden-Pelosi discussion) "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", that indicates the appropriate course of action for pastors to take with pro-abortion public officials in their flocks.
If that's not the Magisterium, what is?
Ben, thanks. I mean, the quote from then-Cardinal Ratzinger is in Thomas's blog post: "When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons."
On the other hand, the "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship" document states, "Yet a candidate's position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support." I would compare this to the Church's support for the witness of pacifists--a legitimate but not universally binding position.
Yet, again, be careful with how you justify your choices because McCain is clearly for embryonic stem cell research, which is intrinsically evil. This is not simple and I just am not sure this is a proper attitude of political responsibility: "I'd rather save myself the mental gymnastics and trust our Bishops." You're clearly well-informed and involved--we have a responsibility to seek out information and think carefully.
TJM, I'm now leaning toward voting for McCain, FYI. I just learned that Obama supports farm subsidies (the worst: ethanol-corn subsidies) and McCain supports them. These farm subsidies can be very harmful to poor farmers in other countries, and this shows me that Obama is not willing to take political risks to do the right thing for them. (Still, much about McCain's foreign policy will harm them as well.)
I'm certainly not voting for Obama. That's no-brainer from a magisterium standpoint. I live in IL. Look at Obama's abortion voting record.
But I can't bring myself to vote for McCain. He's been pro roe-v-wade and pro SCR in the past and only recently flip-flopped on these issues to garner votes. The Palin nomination is sheer lunacy from a foreign policy standpoint. Isn't that obvious to everyone? (But then, we're only supposed to be deciding between McCain and Obama, correct?)
So, why aren't more Catholics talking about abstaining from voting?
"The Palin nomination is sheer lunacy from a foreign policy standpoint. Isn't that obvious to everyone?"
No. None of the candidates for president or vice-president has ANY foreign policy experience. Only Presidents and Secretaries of State (and some Vice-Presidents and Secretaries of Defense) have any experience in making foreign policy.
None of the candidates for president or vice-president has ANY foreign policy experience.
Heh. At the first debate the moderator should pull out a world map without the country names on it.
"Mr. Obama, please point out Georgia (ahem, the country, not the state) on the map."
Braaaaap!
"Mrs. Palin, care to show us Uganda"?
Braaap?
And so on.
To: Ben D. | 09.12.08 - 2:50 pm
Sorry for the delay--I wanted to make sure I had done my homework on this since I'm not familiar with the updates of Catholic Answer's voters' guide from their 2004 version. (see my Homepage link for the guide)
You ask, "Tim, can you explain in more detail where you think the Catholic Answers Voter's Guide goes wrong?"
The problem is with the way they talk about the different between issues involving intrinsically evil actions and other issues. The problem starts from the second paragraph of the guide: "On most issues that come before voters or legislators, the task is selecting the most effective policy to implement or apply a moral principle." It makes it sound like all voters and politicians agree on the relevant moral principles on these issues and only disagree about the logistics of how to accomplish them. As just one example, take the just war doctrine. Pres. Bush was asked if he would still invade Iraq knowing what he knows now about the absence of WMDs, and he said he would do the same, if he knew then what he knows now. Well, this directly contradicts the requirement for legitimate defense by military force that "the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain." If you know a country doesn't have WMDs (under the hypothetical asked Pres. Bush), then there is no aggression or threat of aggression to respond to. (And are you really going to claim the justification for a 2003 invasion was the atrocities against the Kurds in the 80's?)
To put it another way, this is just one example of the confusion that the Catholic Answers guide makes between "non-negotiable moral principles" and ïntrinsic evils." Actually, the just war doctrine is a non-negotiable principle, although defense by military force is not intrinsically evil.
Compare the guide that all but 3 U.S. Bishops approved: "While people of good will may sometimes choose different ways to apply and act on some of our principles, Catholics cannot ignore their inescapable moral challenges or simply dismiss the Church’s guidance or policy directions that flow from these principles" (#63). This statement acknowledges the fact that many (most?) politicians do not abide by our moral principles. Yes, there are different ways that Catholics can apply the principles, but there are also policies which are not in line with the principles--thus the "inescapable moral challenges" pertaining to the full range of political issues that the document goes on to discuss.
To justify the guide's explanation of non-negotiable issues, it quotes a statement of Cardinal Ratzinger dealing with when Catholics may not receive communion. It is not clear to me how this distinction, very relevant for determining whether a politician is directly neglecting Church teaching, carries over to justify their stance on voting decisions.
Finally, there is the selection of their five is
Finally, there is the selection of their five issues--which they explain must both involve intrinsically evil actions and be politically "in play." The latter condition seems questionable to me, but even granting it, I wonder why the issue of torture was not included? Thankfully, it's not at issue in the presidential race but certainly is in many Congressional races.
To be clear, I don't find this procedure of exclusive consideration of issues involving intrinsic evil to be legitimate, in any case. So I'd rather not waste time on which issues to include.
Ben D.,
About Michael position on opposing war in all cases, you might not know that the Catechism commends "Those who renounce violence and bloodshed..." (#2306)
Also relevant to his position is paragraph 2317: "...insofar as they can vanquish sin by coming together in charity, violence itself will be vanquished and these words will be fulfilled: 'they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.'"
Dad007,
I agree. I think I shouldn't have voted for either major candidate in 2004, and maybe that is the proper choice this year as well. And it's not throwing away a vote--it will make future politicians think about how they might earn out votes.
Sarah Palin is very exciting as a pro-life witness. But, yes, the fact that she just got a passport last year makes the prospect of her managing our foreign policy seem a little ridiculous. It's true that very few people have directed foreign policy from the top, but most presidential contenders have at least studied it for more than a few months before being in a position in which they might need to take control of the foreign policy of the world's only superpower.
Thank you all for a constructive discussion--it's wonderful to exchange views with folks who take Church teaching seriously. This bishops' statement genuinely made me rethink some things and I needed to work through some thoughts. But I've been spending way too much time on this, and probably writing more than anyone wants to read, so I'm cutting myself off now. Just wanted to let you know so it doesn't seem like I'm ignoring any future questions..
Tim, now don't blow all the good things you said by putting on the old elitist nonsense about Sarah not having a passport since last year. The fact of the matter is, many, if not most of our president's did not travel outside of the US except for those that were in the miliary. Although foreign travel is nice and I have traveled extensively throughout the world, I think common sense and good judgment matter more. Think: Jimmy Carter. Tom
I would encourage everyone to read the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ statement - “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”. It can be found at their web site:
http://www.usccb.org/
faithfulcit...FCStatement.pdf
In this statement, the bishops offer the following guidance:
“A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.
…
There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.”
Nowhere in there do they say that a Catholic cannot vote for a pro-abortion candidate. In fact, even Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput opined:
“So can a Catholic in good conscience vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is: I can’t, and I won’t. But I do know some serious Catholics— people whom I admire—who may. I think their reasoning is mistaken, but at least they sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And most important: They don’t keep quiet about it; they don’t give up; they keep lobbying their party and their representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them DESPITE - NOT BECAUSE OF — their pro-choice views.” (my emphasis). Link to his letter:
http://www.archden.org/dcr/news....=454&s=2&
a=9553
Jim, Jim, Jim,
Why do people always trot out Archbishop Chaput's letter and then leave out the major qualifier that follows that last statement. "But they also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.
9. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."
I am on the board of an inner-city crisis pregnancy center and our existence is largely dependent on the outcome of this election. There are many who want to see us shut down and with Obama in power they will do their best to drive us out of business. If they do who do you think will provide pro-life counseling? Planned Parenthood? One of our neighboring centers which happens to be next to a PP Clinic recently opened on Saturdays and within 15 minutes of opening a sidewalk counselor brought a women down who was looking for the help she got. A life saved because we were there.
Commenting by HaloScan
