AmericanPapist Comments
I say the Commonweal and Vox Nova Catholics will still give more space and time to one Nigerian bishop announcing support for Obama than they will to dozens of American bishops decrying the "I'm pro-life but voting Obama" dodge.
The Texas bishops' position indeed seems to say what you say it says and it does seem to agree with your vigorously advanced position. But, of course, the fact that particular bishops have endorsed the argument does not necessarily make it right. In fact, I think that it is a seriously flawed argument that greatly oversimplifies the moral issues that surround politics and abortion. I would be displeased if they were my bishops, though I recognize their right as bishops to articulate the faith as they understand it. Our archbishop's recent interview with John Allen articulates a position that accords more with my understanding of the issue.
It is a bold statement, not unlike Raymond Burke's from 2004, which he amended after Ratzinger's letter. It is bound to get positive and negative reactions. A great number of bishops, such as our archbishop, certainly do not agree with it, although I am not sure that any bishop will have the audacity to publicly argue with them about it. Perhaps, if we're lucky, it will lead to more articulate thinking about this complex moral issue. At the least, it increases the urgency of the bishops' meeting in November when they will discuss the issue.
I preached on "Faithful Citizenship" this weekend, essentially stringing a series of quotes together from the USCCB document, some other Church docs, and some quotes from Archbishop Chaput. He essentially made the same point that there is no proportionate reason to justify voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil, by stating that if one can explain with a clear conscience to the victims of abortion why one voted for a "pro-choice" candidate and the victims are satisfied that it's not an alibi, then one can proceed. I expected a lot of hate mail from this homily, but I didn't get it -- instead people have been asking for copies of it to share with others.
Personally, I think we should be unyielding on abortion/euthanasia, until the dead weight (pun intended) of dissenting "Catholics" leave. Let's turn up the heat, boil off the dross, and be a purer, more faithful Church, even if it means forfeiting tax-exemption!
I agree, in substance, with the views expressed by all three of you. I think they sum up the situation we find ourselves. I would only add that the best way to clarify these positions is a statement exactly like this one.
If you look at the history of the controversies in the Church, progress is made by bold statements that stretch principles to their logical conclusion. It is only this honest discourse that yields results, and I'm very happy to see this process taking place.
Chrysologus, please elucidate on your statement that this is a "complex moral issue", because for the life of me I can't see the complications. Supporting someone who promotes abortion is morally wrong. Very uncomplicated.
The rest is just smoke, mirrors, red herrings, and rabbit holes meant to distract people from the fact that support for an abortionist is the same thing as support for abortion.
Here's an analogue.
"Sure he's a pedophile, but he gives to charity, volunteers at the senior center, delivers "Meals on Wheels", and reads to the blind. I completely disagree with his sexual abuse of children, but he does so many other good things how can I possibly hold it against him?"
See how those other "good deeds" don't outweigh the evil - even if taken all together? Same goes for pro-abortion politicians like Obama.
Like I said, very uncomplicated.
Fr. Chris, I completely agree with you. Let's clarify, i.e., "burn off the dross", so that we can keep the Faith pure.
Sean, you said it. Murder is intolerable, under any circumstance, and its gravity cannot be mitigated. Abortion is murder, therefore, abortion is intolerable and cannot be mitigated.
I'm grateful for the voices of these two Bishops, who choose to speak for those who are indeed voiceless.
Here's what Fr. Mitch Pacwa said this month:
“If we vote for the economy instead of for life, we will be on the same level of those people who said look, ‘I am not voting to exterminate Jews, or to put them in Ghettos or concentration camps, I’m voting for a change in our economy in Germany’.... If we vote for the economy, or what we think is the economy, instead of for life, we will have no more reason to hold up our heads than those people who voted Hitler as Reich Chancellor in 1930s.”
This is a bug report:
Each time I load this page now, a computer at "udallas..." requests a userID and a password, presumably (after reading source) to get the picture of Bishop Farrell.
No big problem, just an annoyance...
'Intrinsic evil' is the key phrase. Not the mixmox of issues promoted by our Catholic for Obama brethren. And a definitive, decisive end to Cardinal Bernadin's dream of 'seamless garment.' It appears that if Sen. Obama is elected president, his administration will clash head-on with our Lone Star Shepherds, among others. Let it hap'n, cap'n.
What do I say?
It's crystal clear. While it's true that "the fact that particular bishops have endorsed the argument does not necessarily make it right", it is not true then to go down the "moral complexity" road and to make this a "your perspective vs. mine" thing.
Why not?
The Church teaching is very clear on abortion. Very clear. As it is very clear on the other non-negotiables, as well as war (at least in the abstract by way of the just war theory).
As AP said, given the current cultural context we have ourselves in and given the candidates we have to chose from, this is a definitive "either/or":
"either they (the Bishops) must be reprimanded and/or contradicted by subsequent bishops/competent Church authorities or the claim made by some, that one may vote for a pro-abortion politician even when there is a pro-life politician in the race ... is false, at least in the concrete situation of America today."
There is no middle ground on this. We must begin with the five non-negotiables. It is only after them, if the candidates were to be equal on those non-negotiables, that we could even proceed to talk about things other than the non-negotiables.
How do we determine this? We look at the candidates and where they stand on the non-negotiables. That too, it seems to me, is very clear.
From there, what we need to do as Catholics is apply that teaching on the five non-negotiables in the context of the current election. That is where our Bishops can come in--to lead us and guide us. This is not merely the opinion of "some Bishop".
What these good Bishops from Texas have done is to perform a service of simple logic. To argue with them on the grounds of "moral complexity" or "it's their opinion" is foolish nonsense. What you'd be arguing against is logic.
It is also to argue against the very authority of the Church, again, not on the grounds that we're blinding adhering to "some Bishop" but because those Bishops faithfully and clearly are teaching the authentic faith through this document.
It's a short logical step from there to conclude what the right choice is in this upcoming election.
McCain is not pro-life. He's not as adamantly in support of "abortion rights" as Obama, but he's not pro-life. There is no morally acceptable presidential candidate this year. It's not a matter of a "lesser of two evils". Both candidates have positions on issues that are considered "non-negotiable" by the Church, be it abortion or ESCR. Better luck next go round, I guess. Put your time and energy into selecting good state reps, city council, and school board members. Think global, act local.
Here is a wonderfully clear articulation by Robert George of why Obama is PRO ABORTION and why we cannot go down that road by electing him:
http://
www.thepublicdiscourse.co...0Extremism_.xml
Eric:
It is okay to vote *against* a candidate whom you think will be extremely damaging. Voting for a candidate does not mean you are voting them God. It is a tool. I am perfectly fine voting for McCain, because I think Obama's policies will be extremely damaging to the country in many respects, including abortion.
I agree with Eric -- both candidates support a form of choosing to kill the unborn. One only needs to be educated in their faith to understand the simplicity of this moral dilema. I am conviced that those who have problems being told what their faith is about only want to beleive what they think what their faith is about.
Good link Laura, thx.
"McCain is not pro-life. He's not as adamantly in support of "abortion rights" as Obama, but he's not pro-life. There is no morally acceptable presidential candidate this year. It's not a matter of a "lesser of two evils". Both candidates have positions on issues that are considered "non-negotiable" by the Church, be it abortion or ESCR. Better luck next go round, I guess."
The above is flawed thinking.
This is pretty much the only thing I've heard from the Dallas diocese that made me say "Wow!"... hopefully they keep this up. I'm impressed.
I am proud to live in Texas, now if only I lived in one of these two Dioceses. But alas, I live in a more moderate one a little south of DFW.
God Bless these bishops!
People in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s walked out of the Catholic churches when priests preached against Naziism and the extermination of the Jewish people, too.
The Planned Parenthood Action Fund seems to disagree with you totally, Eric.
I just received a glossy mailing from them saying that McCain and Palin are totally out of touch with women's issues. They show that as far as voting goes, McCain has a big ZERO % rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund!
Talk is big,but actual votes are what you have to look at.
Also, adult stem cell research successes will make the embryo butchery passe.
Jesus Christ is not running for any public office,Eric. We have only terrible, fallible men to choose from.
My son's godfather is a state rep. He is the most honest and upright, Catholic man you can imagine and is a great pro-life and family politician. If you are in the 16 state house district of Tennessee, vote for him, by the way.
We still don't totally agree with him on everything.
I'm afraid the bishops' statement is too little too late. So many Catholics have already convinced themselves that it's ok to vote for the big 0 that they're not listening. Here in New York I've read online that our bishops have issued a similar statement, but guess what? No mention from the pulpit or in the church bulletin. Nobody knows, nobody cares. Preaching to the choir.........
Fr. Chris, losing tax exemption would (what's the best word for this?) suck. I already hate having Uncle Sam take 1/3 of what I make and I would hate even more for him to take 1/3 of what I give to God.
But, if that's what it takes to preach the Gospel of Life in these days...
I also admit to being a bit of a Jonah in being willing to lose the cafeteria Catholics for a more refined Church. But, I have a feeling that God does not think the way I do. In the last verse in Jonah, God said, "And should I not be concerned over Nineveh, the great city, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons who cannot distinguish their right hand from their left, not to mention the many cattle?" "
Gotta love the cattle.
What we need (in the Church in America and in America on the whole) is a new St. Jerome. We need his waywardness, his love of extremes, his sensitivity, his satire, his courage, his outspokeness that is absolutely relentless.
When you're trying to clean up a pig pen, you gotta scrub real hard.
The problem with single issue voting is that it ignores everything else in favour of one item, and that is rarely a good idea. Sarah Palin being the perfect example -- there has never been a less qualified person put up for this office, ever. There were dozens, hundreds, perhaps of more qualified, pro-life candidates that McCain could have chosen from, instead he went out and pretty much picked the worst there was.
Ignoring her ethical issues, close association with a fringe group that promotes secession from the United States (for reasons that have nothing to do with abortion) and her rallies that border on incitements to riot, to say nothing of her lack of qualifications, puts the country at risk, and McCain did us all a disservice by appointing her.
I don't believe that any of these candidates is anyone that Christ would support -- pro-life, but pro-death penalty? Pro-life, but favours raping the environment that God has charged us to take care of? Pro-life, but has no problem with all the guns in the country that people are using to kill each other with? Don't get me wrong - the other side is no better, but we need better candidates, not to merely hold our noses as we choose the lesser of two evils.
Finally, while I laud the small victories that we have won as a movement, if you think voting John McCain / Sarah Palin will get Roe v. Wade overturned, you're fooling yourself. Politicians and judges may do a good job of making you think things will change, but when it comes time to do something, it seems that nothing changes. One could argue that the Supreme Court has been conservative and pro-life since the Reagan/Bush appointments, but they haven't been doing too much overturnin'.
Vote for the candidate that speaks to your heart. If that means strictly pro-life, so be it. But I think that God wants us to be open, honest, caring, sharing and working to make the world a better place for all. That doesn't happen if you let someone's view of doctrine shape you into a myopic person who stampedes over the two commandments of Christ in order to follow, lemming like, the Pied Pipers who happen to be playing your favourite tune.
Personally, I cannot with clear conscious vote for either of the major candidates for US President, so I will leave that portion of my ballot blank.
Realist, you raise important points. I agree that we should not be single issue voters! However, we all have to agree that some issues are more important than others, some topics outweigh others by a long shot.
I've got a friend who is an "English as an Official Language" guy. But can anyone think that EaaOL can even rate with Environmental Issues, National Defense, Social Security, Economics, Education Policy or Abortion? Well, no.
Make a list of the important issues. Put them in order and see how the candidates rank. Measure for quality, not quantity-- and if you can find an issue more important than baby-killing, you're lying to yourself.
Respectfully,
Joe
there has never been a less qualified person put up for this office, ever.
How about good ol' Teddy?
How qualfied were VP folks at the very start of the nation? (trick question-- originally, it was first and second place on the electorial votes)
Have you seriously gone through each and every VP, compared them to Palin, and come to that conclusion? Or are you trusting the meme? And incidentally ignoring that she's got as much experiance as Obama, but in something that's actually relivant to the executive office?
"How about good ol' Teddy?"
Yes, I think that we've all seen this:
Who Am I?
I am under 45 years old,
I love the outdoors,
I hunt,
I am a Republican reformer,
I have taken on the Republican Party establishment,
I have many children,
I have a spot on the national ticket as vice president with less than two years in the governor's office.
Did you guess?
I am Teddy Roosevelt in 1900
----
However:
Teddy Roosevelt, on the other hand, wasn't an idiot.
He was also Governor of New York, not Alaska.
He was also the Assistant Secretary of the Navy and a New York Assemblyman, not mayor of Nowheresville.
He graduated Magna Cum Laude from Harvard. He didn't attend five colleges and take six years to graduate before going on to a short career as a tv sports career.
While in college, Roosevelt was active in rowing, boxing, and edited a magazine. While in college, Palin was third runner up as Miss Alaska.
He was also a war hero in the Spanish-American War, reaching the rank of Colonel.
He wrote 35 books -- it's unclear whether Sarah Palin has READ that many books.
You're right, it's pretty funny to compare them.
----
"And incidentally ignoring that she's got as much experiance as Obama, but in something that's actually relivant to the executive office?"
As I noted, I will not be voting for Obama, either. Had McCain chosen Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, Hutchinson or dozens of others, I'd feel a lot different about supporting that ticket, though I still wouldn't be overjoyed. Instead, we're stuck with a dud who would be an ongoing embarrassment for the country, and if, God forbid, McCain were to die in office, could likely be the end of things. Palin's nonsensical ravings demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of any of the issues that we face, and the claim that she could "learn on the job" is laughable - if McCain passes on January 21st, do we tell the rest of the world to hold on for a bit while we get the new President "up to speed"?
Anyone who believes that Sarah Palin is a good choice to be in charge of our country either has no sense whatsoever, or has let their devotion to one cause or another blind them to reality.
Realist:
I take umbrage at your calling Sarah Palin an "idiot". She is no idiot, and you are no realist.
Please show us where she has uttered "nonsensical ravings". Her speeches have been superb, particularly her defense of the unborn.
She is no lawyer or career politician. She is an ordinary American who rose through the ranks in an attempt to bring reform: PTA, City Council, Mayor, Governor.
No idiot can rise like that. Plus, she has an 80% approval rating, so she must be doing something right for the people she works for.
Your comparision of Palin with Roosevelt is false. Palin is also a sportswoman a la Roosevelt and to only mention her stint in a beauty pageant (to raise money as she had none) is disingenuous as you ignore her other qualities.
I would trust Sarah Palin over any lawyer or DC career politician to run this country because she sees the issues clearly and without the lens of political correctness, hubris, or self aggrandizement. Indeed, our problems in DC are a result of cronyism, detachment from real America, and elitism.
From the dishonesty of your post, I suspect that you suffer from the same. You have no credibility.
Aristocrats... fear the people, and wish to transfer all power to the higher classes of society. --Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1825. ME 16:96
The steady character of our countrymen is a rock to which we may safely moor. --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1801. ME 10:255
"Please show us where she has uttered "nonsensical ravings"."
Sure, on economics:
Couric: Why isn't it better, Governor Palin, to spend 700 billion dollars helping middle-class families who are struggling with health care, housing, gas, and groceries, allow them to spend more and put more money into the economy rather than helping these big financial institutions that played a role in creating this mess?
Palin: That's why I say I, like every American I'm speaking with, we're ill about this position that we have been put in where it is the taxpayers looking to bail out. But ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy. Um, helping, oh, it's got to be all about job creation, too, shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track. So health care reform and reducing taxes and reining in spending has got to accompany tax reductions, and tax relief for Americans, and trade — we have, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as competitive, um, scary thing, but one in five jobs created in the trade sector today. We've got to look at that as more opportunity. All of those things under the umbrella of job creation, this bailout is a part of that.
Or foreign policy:
Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?
Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.
----
Those seem like pretty clear examples of "nonsensical ravings", and I'll bet that you didn't read either one. The first one has been described as a "talking points machine that exploded". Health care reform? Trade? Job creation? Where on Earth did those come from? She appears to be able to parrot a stirring speech when reading from note cards, but unable to put together a coherent sentence when asked a direct question. This is someone who, when asked what newspapers or magazines she reads responded "Oh, all of them" without being able to name a single one.
I'll grant you that "idiot" may be a little strong, but this is hardly the person that I want steering the rudder of our country. Why don't you get a "regular Joe" to fix your plumbing or operate on your heart? Maybe because training and experience are required to be successful at those tasks, and maybe politics is the same way. I don't want to have the US sit down with Putin or Chavez or anyone else with an uninformed "newbie" representing our side, and I can't imagine the reasoning of
Teddy Roosevelt, on the other hand, wasn't an idiot.
That this is your prime response shows that you, however, are.
atheling,
Can I get your opinion on something? What do you make of the "moral complexity" argument in terms of this upcoming election? Is there a moral complexity for a Catholic of authentic faith when it comes to deciding between Obama and McCain should one decide to choose between the two?
(continued) someone who would.
"Your comparision of Palin with Roosevelt is false."
I didn't make the comparison, it was trotted out by Foxfier to bolster the claim that Palin's complete lack of relevant experience is forgivable, because look at what Teddy Roosevelt managed. However, it conveniently overlooks and minimizes what Roosevelt DID accomplish before becoming VP that made him a credible candidate. That is the disingenuous part, not what I added.
"From the dishonesty of your post, I suspect that you suffer from the same."
There is no dishonesty in my post. I challenge you to point some out. All I am asking for is a candidate that I can vote for, and Sarah Palin isn't it, for the reasons I cite.
Realist:
You cite only Couric's interview???
For someone who claims to be a "realist", you display an astonishing gullibility when you think that Couric's hatchet job (which was done in the cutting room) is enough evidence for your assertion.
I don't know if you've noticed, but the MSM are in the tank for Obama, and set out to put Gov. Palin in a poor light. The fact that you fell for their tactic and did not see the editing job in that interview (as in Gibson's also) is laughable.
You ignore all other evidence to the contrary and only rely on a biased and agenda driven media for your rationalization?
Pathetic and foolish.
Anonymous:
If you read my first comment on this thread, you will see that I completely agree with Sean regarding your question.
If you go back to the Diocese of Peoria somewhere between 1983-86 - I remember where I was stationed, the Bishop of Peoria, Bishop Myers, wrote a pastoral which in essence said, If you vote for a pro-abortion candidate or a more pro-abortion candidate when there is a pro-life or lessor pro-abortion candidate you commit a sin of injustice.
I know where I was stationed in the military when I heard the network news comment about the pastoral and I contacted the diocese to get a copy.
BTW, Realist, for your information, Gov. Palin's position gives her extraordinary responsibility in national security matters.
I've already posted this info on this board, but it bears repeating. From Blackfive:
Alaska is the first line of defense in our missile interceptor defense system. The 49th Missile Defense Battalion of the Alaska National Guard is the unit that protects the entire nation from ballistic missile attacks. It’s on permanent active duty, unlike other Guard units.
As governor of Alaska, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism. Her exposure to classified material may rival even Biden's.
She's also the commander in chief of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF), a federally recognized militia incorporated into Homeland Security's counterterrorism plans.
Palin is privy to military and intelligence secrets that are vital to the entire country's defense. Given Alaska's proximity to Russia, she may have security clearances we don't even know about.
According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets.
She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/20...anding-
the.html
Correction: it was 1986-89. I was at a different command at the dates specified.
Sorry
Glaucos
Come back to Houston Allen! You know who I am (Go Eagles).
It is astonishing how our "Boondock" Bishops here in "flyover" country get it right. At least that is my inference from MSC's educated by MSM. (Main Stream Catholics) Of course, there is no valid argument against orthodoxy. Never has been. Never will be.
Laws are made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties which may make anything mean everything or nothing at pleasure. --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450
Common sense [is] the foundation of all authorities, of the laws themselves, and of their construction. --Thomas Jefferson: Batture at New Orleans, 1812. ME 18:92
Give me the common sense of Sarah Palin over the wily obfuscations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden anyday!
I am sick to death of lawyers running the show in DC. We need new blood, and it has to come from ordinary Americans who possess character and honesty.
I would take that over career politicians in every instance. The poor carpenter from Nazareth had more wisdom and honesty than the hyper educated Pharisees - and it glorified God to elevate the humble!
My last parting shot from Thomas Jefferson on the sovereignty of the people:
State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor. The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules. --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787. ME 6:257, Papers 12:15
Can I run a few things by all of you?
I'm having an on-going debate with someone. We were talking about the non-negotiables. This person says, in relation to euthanasia:
"I would suspect that Terri Schiavo lived far longer in the United States thanks to modern medical technology than she would have if she was born in a third-world country. Without that technology, her family's dilemma would not even be available to debate as her illness would have caused a natural death long before."
This is meant to be a defense for putting a "proportionate" reason above euthanasia. Your thoughts on this "argument"?
In terms of redefining marriage:
"The liberal support of "gay marriage" truly does then establish two separate "marriages". Rather, I would think that the support of "human marriage" would strive for further societal equality."
Your thoughts? To me, you can decide to call a banana an apple, but it's still a banana.
"Couric's hatchet job (which was done in the cutting room) is enough evidence for your assertion."
I'm sorry, I must have missed the "uncut version" that you appear to have watched. Can you provide a link to it? Cause the version that I saw didn't have any cuts in it. The economic statement is verbatim, and I trimmed a couple of back and forths from the Russian one for clarity, but it's her complete answer.
"You ignore all other evidence to the contrary and only rely on a biased and agenda driven media for your rationalization?"
What other evidence? I have yet to see any evidence that Palin is anything other than an attractive person who can read a cue card. Geez, even FOXNews and the National Review have given up defending her, so your claims of mainstream media ganging up on her are a little unfounded. Here's a clue - when you have to resort to decrying media coverage of something, you're probably too biased to form a rational opinion, and that's true regardless of which side of the argument you're on. There are those on the left that think the media is biased toward McCain because everyone talks about William Ayers and no one talks about G. Gordon Liddy.
"As governor of Alaska, Palin is briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counterterrorism."
All the worse, then, that she appears to be so horribly uninformed. And I highly doubt that she's given any more briefings than the Governor of Florida or Texas is.
"Give me the common sense of Sarah Palin"
What common sense? I've yet to hear anything come out of her that would be considered "common sense". It's all jingoisms intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator of whatever audience she's talking to.
Frankly, I think that Jefferson would be appalled that these are the candidates that we have to choose from.
Anonymous -
This is meant to be a defense for putting a "proportionate" reason above euthanasia. Your thoughts on this "argument"?
Life expectancy use to be about, what, 35 years? Therefore, it's OK to vote for those who want to kill everyone over 50 so long as you give really, really good health care up to 50....
(yes, that is reductio ad absurdum, but it's absurd enough it might get through to folks where simple reason wouldn't)
Uh, Realist, you mean to tell me that you didn't notice the choppiness of the film when watching the interview?
You certainly don't understand the spirit of Jefferson's writings, either. Indeed, you are the type of elitist that Jefferson warned about.
I am afraid that your moniker is truly a misnomer.
Should be "Delusional Elitist".
Anonymous:
Tell your friend that even back in the good ole days they had food and water, the latter of which is what Terri Schiavo was deprived of and caused her death.
Sarah Palin's quotes are sensical and non-raving. I read your quote. Maybe you meant rambling. I'll give you that. But she does make her point. According to what she says:
She does not agree with the bail-out.
She believes it has to be done because doing will allow us to look at other issues such as health care, job creation, reducing taxes, reducing spending, and increasing trade. All fundamentals of a growing economy. The bailout will allow these things to be focused on.
She says her foreign policy experience is in dealing with Russia for trade, and Alaska being the first front of American defense. Both valid points.
Now maybe she doesn't say this as eloquently as a William F. Buckley. But don't confuse style with substance. This is exactly what the MSM does with George Bush. But he gets things done. He announced the bailout. Did it happen or did it not? Was it properly debated? Palin will be the same. Look at her record in Alaska.
Proportionate reasoning has to do with making a decision where one issue is graver than another. In our case choosing the lesser of two evils. In the Schiavo case, is your friend saying that it was better for her to die than to remain on a feeding tube? That would be the only proportional aspect of this argument. We already know the answer to this. Your friend's argument really has more to do with relativism. A feeding tube or IV is not an extreme medical measure. It does NOT constitute life support. She simply was starved to death. All so her husband could marry again.
Your friend's argument would be "I don't think she had a good quality of life because I wouldn't want to live that way". A completely relative view NOT grounded in truth.
Tell your friend she/he would make a great Spartan but not a Catholic.
They do seem to miss a few things. One is jurisdiction. If you are electing a dog catcher then their position on abortion should not matter. But what about president? The jurisdiction there is very indirect. Sure some regulations make a difference but the 1 million per year reality is with a pro-life president. Was it much worse under Clinton? The other area of jurisdiction is SCOTUS appointments. Again it is indirect. No clear statements are made in terms of trying to overturn Roe v Wade. Code words abound. Is this the way we deal with moral absolutes?
The other problem is when they say intinsic evil always out-weighs prudential judgements. That is just false. Prosecuting an unjust was is more gravely evil than procuring a single abortion. The unjustness of the war can be debated but once a person has honestly discerned that it is unjust it has great moral gravity.
A lot comes down to how believable McCain is on judges. If you think he will truly fight the democratic senate and get some pro-life judges seated then that should compell you to vote for him. I have trouble seeing that. I think he will make a "gang of 14" style compromise.
"She does not agree with the bail-out. She believes it has to be done because doing will allow us to look at other issues such as health care, job creation, reducing taxes, reducing spending, and increasing trade. All fundamentals of a growing economy. The bailout will allow these things to be focused on."
I'm not sure how you've garnered that from what she said, but even if that's the case, the bailout has nothing to do with any of it. It's about fixing the credit market and undoing some of the damage that poor regulation did. And taking 700 billion dollars and applying it to that means more spending, not less, and more taxes, not less. A better answer would have been "I think that the bailout is a bad idea. Here's why."
"She says her foreign policy experience is in dealing with Russia for trade, and Alaska being the first front of American defense. Both valid points."
Well, according to this: http://www.salon.com/politics/wa...trade_missions/
(left wing / mainstream media, sorry) there is no evidence of any such trade missions. I wasn't able to find a follow up report from anyone (left wing kooks or otherwise) indicating that this wasn't the case. And claiming that the Governor of Alaska is a relevant role to national defense is on a par with saying that the Governor of Florida is an expert on astronomy because they shoot off space shuttles from his state.
About 20% of the population are hard core Democrats, and 20% are hard core Republicans, which means they'd vote for pretty much anyone that the party puts up -- the Dems could announce a ticket of Fidel and Raul Castro and they'd still wind up with their 20%. You guys are part of that, I get it. No amount of logic or rational is going to sway you from your support.
The sad thing about that, and the point that I've been trying to make all along, is that it means your opinion on anything beyond your core issue means absolutely nothing, and anyone who supports your one issue can pretty much do anything they like. Don't like handguns? Too bad, cause there are few candidates that are pro-life and anti-gun, even though they'd seem to go together. Ditto death penalty. Ditto "waterboarding" and denial of habeas-corpus to anyone the government doesn't like. You think Jesus is okay with torture? Cause I'm thinking he's not.
Morality isn't a menu system, where you pick the commandments you want to follow and what "just don't seem all that important". God didn't rank things, aside from the most important being "Love the Lord thy God with all your heart" and "Love your neighbour as yourself". The belief that you can focus on one thing to support and ignore everything else is a PERSON'S opinion, it's not God's.
The worst part, though, is that WE let this happen. There is no reason that America can't have a "Morality Party" or something, whose platform included pro-life, pro-environment, responsible government progr
(continued)
The worst part, though, is that WE let this happen. There is no reason that America can't have a "Morality Party" or something, whose platform included pro-life, pro-environment, responsible government programs that watch out for societies vulnerable members, anti-gun and so on. That, however, will never happen when we allow our single minded focus to allow the politicians to treat our votes as that "20% taken for granted, cause I said I'd support pro-life judges, even though that hasn't done a whole lot in the last 30 years."
Randy said: "The unjustness of the war can be debated but once a person has honestly discerned that it is unjust it has great moral gravity".
Can you clarify a bit? Are you saying that if you personally think the war is unjust, then it takes on great moral gravity when it comes time for you to vote?
The Church teaches that ultimately it is the task of political leaders (not bishops, not popes, and not private citizens) to determine whether a war is just.
This only makes sense because the people responsible for waging a war are the ones who have the most and best access to the sort of information that they need in order to make the prudential judgment.
So unless you think that a candidate is sincerely and deliberately intent on waging what he himself understands to be an unjust war, I don't see how the war issue can compare with abortion.
You may be opposed to the war, but you might be wrong because some wars are just, and some aren't. That's the whole point of distinguishing between intrinsic evils and matters of prudence.
Because abortion is an intrinsic evil, there's no room for opinion -- it's simply wrong, all the time, everywhere. A candidate who is deeply committed to expanding access to it (i.e. Obama) is way off.
Obama is committed to seeing the Freedom of Choice Act through Congress. This would be a disaster and a huge rollback for the pro-life movement.
Let's also not forget that, apart from Supreme Court justices, the average president appoints hundreds of lower-court federal judges during his time in the Oval Office.
Realist:
When you say 20% of the population is hard-core Democrat and 20%, hard-core Republican, what you are saying is that these people's religion is Democrat and Republican instead of Catholic, Baptist, etc. It doesn't matter what pew they sit in or pulpit they preach from.
Glaucos
Realist:
You get your info from Salon???
WTH?
Why am I wasting my time with you?
Eric-
McCain just said in the 3rd Presidential Debate:
"Those of US who are proudly pro-life..."
Meaning...he IS, in fact, pro-life. As if that was in question.
"The other problem is when they say intrinsic evil always out-weighs prudential judgements. That is just false. Prosecuting an unjust was is more gravely evil than procuring a single abortion. The unjustness of the war can be debated but once a person has honestly discerned that it is unjust it has great moral gravity."
Randy: You are absolutely right. This is the fatal flaw in the argument of the two Texas bishops. A person's conscience is not limited to only what the Catholic Church teaches definitively. If a person is morally sure that the war is unjust, then that is important and can't be waived away simply because it's not a point of Catholic doctrine.
"Chrysologus, please elucidate on your statement that this is a "complex moral issue", because for the life of me I can't see the complications. Supporting someone who promotes abortion is morally wrong. Very uncomplicated."
Sean: Abortion is a morally clear issue: it is gravely wrong and should be illegal. The issue of how to pursue the pro-life cause, however, and how the particular issue relates to voting is complex. There are many opinions one could come up with. For instance, maybe you doubt that the president will be able to do anything about abortion, so you vote for something else where the president will be able to do something. Or maybe your political system forbids you to pick a judge simply based on whether they are pro-life or not. The Catholic Church permits so many different political philosophies and ways of thinking about politics, that it's impossible to categorically rule out every possible justification for voting for a pro-choice candidate in spite of his position on abortion. Such all-or-nothing argumentation would require us to vote for the anti-Christ himself so long as he was pro-life.
"When you say 20% of the population is hard-core Democrat and 20%, hard-core Republican, what you are saying is that these people's religion is Democrat and Republican instead of Catholic, Baptist, etc."
Well, I suppose that's one way to look at it, but I don't think anyone expects salvation from either party. It just means that some people are so stuck in their position that there is nothing that will drag them away. Thus, elections are decided not by the core group, not ever. Elections are settled by the 60% or so of the people in the "identify with Democrats > Independent > identify with Republicans" middle.
You can lose an election by failing to score with your core 20% (because they'll just stay home) but you can never win an election by catering solely to them, because what appeals only to that core group doesn't generally score a lot of points with the other 80%.
"You get your info from Salon???"
No, I just typed "Palin Trade Mission to Russia" into Google and it returned a bunch of junk, all of which pointed back to that article. As I said, I looked for anything, official or not, that disputed it, without success. If you can locate something, post it, because if that article is accurate (hey, even a broken clock is accurate twice a day), your candidate is a bald-faced liar.
"Why am I wasting my time with you?"
I'm not sure how much time you're wasting, as you've yet to address anything that I've said in a lucid, non-reactionary response. Between the Jeffersonian quotes bandied about like they're your own and somehow relevant and the "MSM paranoia" you profess, it's a little difficult to take you serious. I'm raising a serious issue, and you're responding with platitudes that impress no one but those who already agree with you.
"Such all-or-nothing argumentation would require us to vote for the anti-Christ himself so long as he was pro-life."
Bingo. That's my point, exactly.
Sorry, I don't buy this. As a well-informed practicing Catholic i find this the pro life issue to be an absolute divisive red herring to all of the other issues plaguing our society. We have brothers, sisters, and parents dying for the OIL CRUSADE in iraq, not to mention ruining the lives of MILLIONS OF IRAQIS, destroying their livelihoods, homes and families. we have the economy collapsing, threatening our own livelihoods.
Maybe those who simply vote on the pro-life issue are taking the easy road, not thinking about any other issues because they are too complex, simply succumbing to intellectual pornography that abortion is bad, not realizing why this atrocity happens, not realizing the realities that are around us. Maybe those who vote just on one issue are the apostate, giving up their free will and refusing to delve deeper into the real issues.
excommunicate me, kick me out of the church for voting obama, but thats what my conscience leans toward.
Dave:
There are two wars. One war's justification is debatable, and about 4,000 Americans have been killed over 5 years.
The other war is inarguably unjust, and those being killed have no voice and are the most defenseless of people. And almost 3,000 per day are being slaughtered.
You don't have a dog in this fight.
1. The first thought that springs to mind is that McCain is not 100% opposed to the use of embryonic stem cells in research because he supports using the embryos that are already slated for destruction. ESCR is at least as intrinsically evil as abortion. Ergo, neither candidate fits the bill as we would prefer. Yet one is clearly the lesser of two evils in that Obama supports both ESCR and abortion, whereas McCain supports only one, and that with clear moral reservations.
2. McCain in the debate stated that, as a Federalist, he would appoint Justices not based on their ideology but on their competence-- and he further mentioned that any Justice who believes Roe v.Wade was a just decision clearly is not competent. Obama in the meanwhile has already opposed a nominee based on ideology. That should be reason enough to vote for McCain.
3. In response to the misnamed Realist, were a demented monkey able to articulate that human life begun at conception already has protection under the Constitution, that monkey would still be a better candidate than Barack Obama; at least with Palin you get someone who can articulate the Truth and govern a state of the Union. Let's be realistic: not voting for anyone is a vote for Obama, and a vote for Obama is a vote for someone with no grasp of the Truth about abortion.
Or (to second Mitch Pacwa): a vote for Obama is a vote for the Third Reich. After all, Planned Parenthood, a major supporter of Obama's campaign, have been great admirers of Nazi Eugenics since their inception. Please prove me wrong after thoroughly fact-checking these websites, including their works cited...
http://www.blackgenocide.org/abo...g/
abortion.html
http://bound4life.com/abortion-history/
One might argue it's going to far to accuse a black man of supporting the Third Reich, but either Sen. Obama is willfully ignorant or he's simply as morally skewed as Dr. Mengele. Regardless, Gov. Palin sounds like she's more in touch with the Truth about human life at the moment of conception than he has ever been.
4. You may say that a candidate's stance on this one issue should not affect your vote. Ask yourself: in what other issue do 50 million lives hang in the balance?
Back to the Palin bashing Realist engaged in earlier....... I am guessing that many, if not most, of the Wall St. bozos and government cronies who orchestrated the current financial melt-down were educated in colleges Realist would find acceptable. Probably many of the media graduated from those acceptable colleges also. Thank GOD we have a candidate who wasn't brainwashed.
Here we go with the ole "oil crusade" line again...
"We have brothers, sisters, and parents dying for the OIL CRUSADE in iraq, not to mention ruining the lives of MILLIONS OF IRAQIS, destroying their livelihoods, homes and families. we have the economy collapsing, threatening our own livelihoods."
"Runing the lives of millions of Iraqis"? Sounds like liberal rhetoric to me. Please prove your case.
Even if this true, and we granted, for the sake of argument, that abortion and the war in Iraq are, in the abstract, moral equivalents (equally evil), this says nothing about the matter of scale, which would be the next consideration. As another poster alluded to, there is a domestic war in this country that has been going on loooong before Iraq. It has claimed the lives for about 50 million over about 30 years. Nothing compares to that in matters of scale.
In matter of principle alone, we are certain abortion is intrinsically evil. We are not certain that this war is. What's clear in the abstract and in matters of scale is that abortion cannot be tolerated, regardless of all else.
You put the cart before the horse here: "threatening our own livelihoods." That's the same argument the woman who wants to have an abortion uses: "this is my body."
It seems to me there is an inherent selfishness in the worldview that lessens the atrocity of abortion because the "economy is falling apart".
What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul?
Gosh Realist, I guess if you actually parse someone's words and try to understand what they are saying it makes you "hard core" and undiscerning.
If my opinion really meant nothing, then why even respond to it? And what issues have I supported here, except Catholic teaching?
I must have struck a nerve, because it took you three additional posts to clarify.
Catholic and voting for Obama.
When you loose your job and your livelyhood, we will really see what you really care about. I find it amazing that we are not offering solutions to this problem that has existed in the country far longer than Roe vs Wade. Abortion has to be stopped... Yes, but as of right now, I dont feel that it will be stopped by who ever is voted president.Anyway, its the repblicans who only want you to focus on only one issue, like nothing else really matters.
Reggie - which issue is that? The war, abortion,the economy.....etc.? If any supreme court judges need to be nominated during the next president's term of office it will make a big difference who is sitting in the oval office.
"Catholic and voting for Obama."
Make up your mind.
Religion ultimately is man's relationship (re-ligare re-binding) to God at the deepest level - which is the level of conscience. Conscience is the last practical judgement that this act (of voting for this candidate) is moral or not. Conscience draws on general moral principles from an act of the intellect some call synderesis to make its judgement. The moral principle here is either: it is moral to vote for a pro-abortion candidate (the Democrat principle) or it is immoral to vote for a pro-abortion candidate (the Catholic principle - per the pope, "non-negotiable"). The principle you use when you vote is the religion which governs your life.
I know this is an old post... but for those of you who aren't here in Dallas: The media aren't telling you that the people who walked out during the homily were from Holy Trinity, a parish in an area of downtown heavily populated by active homosexuals. And the bishops' statement mentioned the Church's teaching on homosexual actions as an example of a non-negotiable moral issue. There have been no reports of people walking out in other parishes. Coincidence?
Commenting by HaloScan
