Torture wasn't a non-negotiable on last year's Catholic Answers guide. Will it be this year?
Ryan C | 10.30.06 - 1:08 pm | #

I watched the Charlie Brown Halloween special with the kids the other night.

Watching Charlie Brown try to kick that football and falling flat on his back made me realize: We pro-lifers are Charlie Brown, and the Republicans are Lucy.

When will we learn?
Mark S. (not for Shea) | 10.30.06 - 1:20 pm | #

Ryan:

I have no idea. They're in San Diego. I'm in Seattle. I just send them articles now and then. I have no access to their inner workings.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 10.30.06 - 1:40 pm | #

According to Paragraph 2240 of the Catechism, "Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country" (italics mine).

Pro-abortion? 24,000 dead in the state of Washington alone each year. Pro-torture? No one knows how many dead, but over 24,000? Not even close. Third-party who isn't pro-abortion? There's no chance there. Not vote? At least here we have a solid answer: we are morally obligated to vote. To think that we can avoid a difficult decision by not voting is childish.

Mark, you are called to vote (as we all are); the catechism rules out any other option. Choose carefully, and may the Holy Spirit guide us all.
Louis | 10.30.06 - 1:55 pm | #

"I do not see how a Christian can vote for any candidate who supports either."

You do realize, of course, that the Pope disagrees with you? Here is what then Cardinal Ratzinger said in Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion: General Principles (the remarks explicitly deal with abortion and euthenasia, but would seem applicable to torture as well):

"A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. 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.”
Josiah | 10.30.06 - 2:08 pm | #

So I guess a vote for either major party is therefore a "remote material cooperation" in evil. It's just a matter of choosing in which evils you choose to cooperate.

What a sad, sad day for this country.
Mark S. (not for Shea) | 10.30.06 - 2:13 pm | #

It's been a long "sad day for this country."

On the lighter side, my horoscope for today warns me that "people who do not have your interests at heart will try to sway you" today.

How did the stars know that there's an election going on?
Chris Parks | 10.30.06 - 2:33 pm | #

"which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons"

Proportionate. Like Louis said, nearly a million dead from abortion in the US this year, how many from torture?

Josiah, in the USA, what ~proportionate~ reason could you find to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? In other words, what else causes one million innocent deaths per year in the US?
ben | 10.30.06 - 2:39 pm | #

...the catechism rules out any other option.

It does? Does it also require universal military service?
Zippy | Homepage | 10.30.06 - 2:43 pm | #

Proportionate. Like Louis said, nearly a million dead from abortion in the US this year, how many from torture?

That isn't what "proportionate" means in Catholic moral theology. "Proportionate" doesn't refer to comparing cooperation with one evil to cooperating with another. It refers to when the means to accomplish something is properly matched to what it is intended to accomplish. So for example using a flame thrower to defend yourself from a little old lady chasing you with her handbag would not be proportionate.
Zippy | Homepage | 10.30.06 - 2:46 pm | #

Ben,

The only time I could see myself voting for a pro-abortion candidate would be if there weren't another serious pro-life candidate in the race, or if the candidate furthered the pro-life cause in some way (e.g. a pro-abort Republican Senator whose election would ensure a pro-life Republican majority in the Senate). But I can't say that a person who came to a different conclusion was acting in bad faith, because a) there are issues such as the war on terror or the environment that potentially involve just as many lives, and b) there's always a question about how much practical difference electing Republicans makes in reducing the abortion rate.
Josiah | 10.30.06 - 3:01 pm | #

Zippy,

"Proportionate" as used in Catholic moral theology can refer both to the proportion between the end and the means used and to the proportion between the good and bad resulting from a given act. In this case it would seem to be the later notion of proportionality that is clearly involved.
Josiah | 10.30.06 - 3:04 pm | #

Zippy,

Could you please translate that into a voting scenario? I don't plan on taking a flame-thrower into the voting booth.
Brian Day | 10.30.06 - 3:05 pm | #

I confess it amuses me to see Zippy's
newfound hermaneutic flexibility — at least with respect to the CCC's teaching on the moral obligation to vote.

(And btw, Zippy: I think you are perfectly justified in not voting, if you judge that any vote would be unjustified material cooperation in evil).
Rick | 10.30.06 - 3:06 pm | #

There is a lot to what you say about the parties.

But candidates can still be differentiated. They don't all vote ro speak in lockstep. The onus remains on the voter to really research the candidates asking for his or her vote. There are still candidates who have acceptable positions by the Church's standards - but you do have to look for them.

And when you find them, vote for them - if they're in your constituency.
Richard | 10.30.06 - 3:22 pm | #

Mark,

Thanks for the clarification.

Louis,

That there is a morally obligatory obligation to vote does not mean one has to choose between two candidates with evil positions, just as the obligation to defend ones country does not mean one has to follow an unjust order, and just as the obligation or pay taxes does not mean one shouldn't claim expemption from a tax used to support abortion or other such evils.

Josiah,

Unfortunately, it seems that there are a number of people out there who would, to paraphrase Ratzinger, vote for "a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on torture." These are dark days indeed.
Ryan C | 10.30.06 - 3:23 pm | #

In terms of proportionality its not too far a stretch of the imagination to see torture as having devastating far-reaching effects beyond the immediate ones on the prisoner and his torturer. Like say, the collection of bad intelligence, a burgeoning of the Culture of Death, and increasing the hatred for America around the globe, thus putting our lives and those of our servicemen in greater danger.

You can't play strict numbers games with any of these intrinsically immoral acts.
Ryan C | 10.30.06 - 3:32 pm | #

Ryan,

There are no doubt many people (including many Christians) who view a candidate's support for the torture that dare not speak it's name a plus. Shame on them. But Mark said he didn't see how a Christian could vote for a torture-supporting candidate at all, even if it was in spite of rather than because of his position on the issue. That, it seems to me, is not an accurate representation of Catholic teaching on the matter.

Also, while it's true that you can't play a sheer numbers game when it comes to weighing the importance of political issues, numbers are hardly irrelevant to the equation.

One other thing. It strikes me as implausible to read the Catechism's statement on voting as imposing a universal obligation to vote in every election. There have been instances where the Church has told people not to vote in a given election, and I would think that (depending on the circumstances) conscientious non-voting could fulfil one's civic obligations just as well as voting could.
Josiah | 10.30.06 - 3:47 pm | #

Zippy: according to the Catechism, we are obliged to "defend our country". I think it would be silly to interpret that as "universal military service", though I would interpret that as saying if an unjust conqueror were invading I would be obliged to do what I could for our country up to and including taking up arms against the invader.

Ryan: I don't think it is prudent to vote for someone if they have no chance of winning. Based on that, I feel called to vote for the person who would do the least amount of harm and who has a reasonable chance of winning. Here in King County, WA, the last gubernatorial race was decided by less than 200 votes on the third recount. Every vote counts, but more importantly we need to encourage more people to vote.
Louis | 10.30.06 - 3:55 pm | #

Could you please translate that into a voting scenario? I don't plan on taking a flame-thrower into the voting booth.

I ain't Zippy. And I could never play one on TV. But I suspect it means that the "proportionate" reasons for voting for a pro-abort candidate would be (e.g.) that he was less pro-abort than the other candidate, and thus the end in view in voting for him would be to lessen the damage from abortion, with respect to the other candidate. Could be wrong...
John Henry | Homepage | 10.30.06 - 4:03 pm | #

Zippy: according to the Catechism, we are obliged to "defend our country". I think it would be silly to interpret that as "universal military service", ...

And I think it is just as obviously silly to interpret the Catechism to mean "you must cast an actual vote in every election no matter what is on the ballot." (I don't think that is 'hermeneutical flexibility' as much as simple basic rationality).
Zippy | Homepage | 10.30.06 - 4:07 pm | #

Josiah: it is true that "proportionate" can have multiple senses, but the sense I expressed is, as far as I know, the one which is pertinent in evaluating a proposed instance of remote material cooperation with evil.
Zippy | Homepage | 10.30.06 - 4:09 pm | #

Let's see...

we have about 6 years of complete republican control of the house, senate and executive....

...and this has translated into how many fewer abortions...

...and how many laws that directly protect life...

Proportionate.....zero divided by any other number is still zero...
Paul Scheibmeir | 10.30.06 - 4:14 pm | #

King Herod was a democrat...

Pontius Pilate was a republican...

....they both got along
Paul Scheibmeir | 10.30.06 - 4:17 pm | #

OK...it was Herod's dad who slaughtered the innocents...but you get my point..
Paul Scheibmeir | 10.30.06 - 4:18 pm | #

Oh...and another thing...wasn't Pilate the one who famously asked "What is Truth?"...

...much the same way our current President asks "What is Torture?"
Paul Scheibmeir | 10.30.06 - 4:20 pm | #

Yes, every now and then when someone thinks I am conservative (I am, but of the Burkean sort rather than the American sort) and tries to play gotcha with me by mentioning pro-choice guys Guiliani or Schwarzenegger. A pretty disappointing game when I tell them they are unacceptable candidates. It blows away that nice little box they like to put people in.
Scott W. | 10.30.06 - 4:24 pm | #

What has the Bush administration (and the Republican controlled congress) done to advance the pro-life cause. Well, to start with, how about this:

http://www.infrontofyournose.com...er-17- 2006.html

Add to it cutting off funding for abortions overseas and by the military; the PBA ban, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, the ban on fetal farming.

Republican control over the Senate is particularly important. If the Republicans hadn't lost control over the Senate in 1986 we probably would have gotten Bork on the Court instead of Kennedy, which would have spelled the end of Roe v. Wade.
Josiah | 10.30.06 - 4:29 pm | #

While I can't speak to the individual candidates all being deceivers, I've come to the conclusion that the Republican Party, as a whole, merely dangles the carrot of anti-abortion and anti-same-sex-marriage every 4 or 6 years to lure Catholics and Evangelicals into pulling the lever for the GOP.

I'm not buying it any longer.

The battle has to be won on state ballot referendums and similar.
tony c | 10.30.06 - 4:33 pm | #

Zippy,

Josiah is absolutely correct with regard to "proportionate."

If Candidate A favors little evil x but opposes large evil y, and

Candidate B opposes little evil x but favors large evil y,

then a virtuous voter, opposed to both evils, could certainly, on grounds of proportionality, vote for Candidate A.
Rick | 10.30.06 - 4:33 pm | #

Please don't forget that most of the stuff you read in the news (CNN, NBC, etc.) was written by people who are pro-abortion. I find it pretty easy to despair sometimes, but, as Josiah mentions, the pro-life cause isn't just a carrot for some of our leaders.
Louis | 10.30.06 - 4:56 pm | #

...then a virtuous voter, opposed to both evils, could certainly, on grounds of proportionality, vote for Candidate A

I think it is better said that it might be the case that a virtuous voter could decide to vote in that way for those reasons (and it is still a misunderstanding of how proportionality applies in evaluating remote material cooperation with evil, as I understand it).

Most of what happens when a person enters the voting booth happens inside the person. The direct effect of the particular act on the outside world is negligible. And it is far from clear exactly what sort of act a vote is.

I do agree that the matter isn't settled. But "the matter isn't settled" isn't the same thing as "doing things this way is definitely licit."
Zippy | Homepage | 10.30.06 - 5:13 pm | #

While I can't speak to the individual candidates all being deceivers, I've come to the conclusion that the Republican Party, as a whole, merely dangles the carrot of anti-abortion and anti-same-sex-marriage every 4 or 6 years to lure Catholics and Evangelicals into pulling the lever for the GOP.

I'm not buying it any longer.

I'm with you.

Although I would hasten to add that any election needs to be about all of the major issues, and not just abortion and gay marriage.

A true Culture of Life has to encompass a protection of human rights after birth, as well as before.


The battle has to be won on state ballot referendums and similar.

Yes and no.

I will dance with joy if Roe v. Wade is overturned.

But don't think for an instant that it will end abortion in the US. In fact, it might strengthen it, because at that point, NARAL and Planned Parenthood and their ilk are going to unleash unholy war. They usurped justice in SCOTUS with Roe v. Wade. If that is taken away from them, they'll push it through legislatures, maybe even through Congress.

And unless we are winning the culture war along with the political battles, I'm afraid the bad guys might come out on top there. We have to be changing the hearts and minds of the people first and foremost. Do that and the laws will change, I promise you.
Mark S. (not for Shea) | 10.30.06 - 6:38 pm | #

"And unless we are winning the culture war along with the political battles, I'm afraid the bad guys might come out on top there. We have to be changing the hearts and minds of the people first and foremost. Do that and the laws will change, I promise you."

Sounds about right to me. You can go even further and point out that in any 'modern' country you can name in which millions of people were murdered, there were perfectly adequate laws against murder.
Pavel Chichikov | Homepage | 10.30.06 - 7:24 pm | #

I'm not a shill for the Republicans, but for anyone paying attention, they have done quite a lot for the cause of life as mentioned above. In addition, they have also fought against embryonic stem cell research quite viruently, despite polls suggesting it is a losing political animal at this point. The perfection demanded by many in this combox is laughable as if Roe vs. Wade is not turned over tomorrow, then the Republicans have done nothing at all. Go ahead - vote Democratic, and see what has been accomplished go in complete reverse. But don't play dumb when it happens, as if many of you might, scratching your heads, and wondering, "what happened?"
Derek | 10.30.06 - 8:34 pm | #

I'm not a shill for the Republicans, but for anyone paying attention, they have done quite a lot for the cause of life as mentioned above.

As also mentioned above, the Culture of Life means a lot more than being against abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

When it comes to promoting the Culture of Life, both major parties fail. They may be failing in different areas, but both get an F in my book.
Mark S. (not for Shea) | 10.30.06 - 9:36 pm | #

If one reads the comments to this post, how can one not see the need for clear definitions.

Mark, how many innocent babies will be butchered by partial birth abortion in the future if the democrats are in majority? You want a definition for torture? I will agree with you that taking an innocent person and without anesthetic ripping arms and legs off and shoving a scissors in their skull and sucking out their brain is torture. How is that, are we in agreement? Why you are upset about waterboarding a prisoner, you seem to be OK with allowing the above to a baby. How? By not continuing the progress made over the last number of years under Republican leadership to the ravages of years of liberal judges and democratic control. It takes years to change judicial actions unless you really have a congress with overwhelming majorities willing to impeach judges or make other changes in district makeup. It simply will not happen without a huge majority. Americans were in large majority were in support of invading Iraq and when it first started the numbers jumped as winning always attracts followers. The numbers are down now simply because it is getting difficult and most Americans are lazy. We want everything fast and easy. I recently went to see the movie Iwo Jima with two Catholic veterans of that battle. Afterward, we spent some time talking about the country at that time. Their wives were both along for the trip and we talked about the USA then versus now. All of them were amused at how weak the American society is today compared to back then. We fought a society that did not value life at all just as we do today. They tortured and murdered our troops just as does our enemy today. They thought nothing of sending troops out including women and children to kill us then and they do not today. We will only win this war in a brutal battle because the other side will not stop, negotiate or surrender. It is estimated there are a billion muslims and cold be as many as 15% that are radical with many other silently or financially supporting them. If we show weakness, they gain strength. I fear we may soon elect those who believe we can run, hide and negotiate. If we do, the radicals will signal victory and their numbers will grow. This puts our families at risk.

I pray as do these veterans and their families that America will wake up to the war we are fighting and realize that it is a battle unlike any we have fought to date and with a very serious foe. Lets face it, we have to go after them. we cannot think we can sit here and defend ourselves and maintain any semblance of life as we know it today. We have to seek and find them. One of the veterans was assigned the job of flame thrower. It was very dangerous with many blown up by sniper fire within minutes. If successful, you got to get up close and personal with the smell of burning flesh. without them, many thousands more would have died. He laughs at todays left who think there was any way to end that war without the firebombing and nuclear weapons. He said the battle for Japan would have been brutal and with Russia coming into the war, we had to end it or face a possible Russian stronghold in Asia which would have destabalized the entire region.

I hope we can hold onto strength in the battle we face today, but I fear for America. To turn our country over to those who have no problem with abortion, embryonic stem cell murder, gay marriage, and a variety of other ills in conflict with the most serious of Catholic church teaching is very disturbing.
joeh | 10.31.06 - 12:45 am | #

joeh:

Yet again, you seem to think that to oppose torture is to endorse abortion and vice versa. I will not play the game of Strength Through Evil, whoever is trying to play it.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 10.31.06 - 1:20 am | #

Third-party who isn't pro-abortion? There's no chance there.

"We are called to be faithful, not successful" Mother Theresa

A true Culture of Life has to encompass a protection of human rights after birth, as well as before.

Don't disagree with you about a full culture of life, but protection of rights after birth is a bit moot if there is no protection of rights before birth - at least it is moot for 1.5 million (+/-) per year of our fellow beings.
c matt | 10.31.06 - 9:23 am | #

I don't get it. Torture is in no way comparable to abortion. It is more analogous to the death penalty in many ways, and no sane person has argued that a candidates support for the death penalty would be of equal moral weight to that of abortion.

I don't like the idea (which Mark seems to advocate) of sending "parties" a message. I look over the slate of candidates, and the Republican slate here in Minnesota is very solid with the exception of our Congressional candidate. So I vote for the GOP, with the exception of the Congressional candidate. They are individuals, not Borg.

If the individual GOP candidates in your state are not good, then I recommend that you do not vote for them, but I fart in the general direction of the idea that we punish "parties" by refusing to vote for good candidates that belong to flawed parties.

Some in the GOP, like Cheney, who I do not like, and other hawks, may be blurring or crossing the line between coercion and torture, but this is a somewhat murky area in no way as clear as abortion.
Dave Mueller | 10.31.06 - 10:11 am | #

I don't get it. Torture is in no way comparable to abortion. It is more analogous to the death penalty

No. The death penalty is not intrinsically immoral. Both abortion and torture are intrinsically immoral, according to Veritatis Splendor. In short, the application of the death penalty can be justified under certain circumstances. The application of torture can never be justified under any circumstances, according to the Church.
Mark P. Shea | Homepage | 10.31.06 - 10:58 am | #

Don't disagree with you about a full culture of life, but protection of rights after birth is a bit moot if there is no protection of rights before birth - at least it is moot for 1.5 million (+/-) per year of our fellow beings.

I absolutely agree.

Every time I point out the huge glaring weaknesses of the GOP, people immediately assume I'm shilling for the Democrats. Ain't so. I'm not a Democrat nor do I intend to vote for them for major office.

But just because I refuse to sacrifice for Moloch doesn't mean I'm going to vote for Mammon.

My understanding of Catholic doctrine, Chesterton, and just plain common sense will not allow me to endorse either party. Their evils may differ, but I see no question that they are advocating evils.

And I find it a little sad that this argument always comes down to abortion vs. torture. Both grave evils, to be sure, but hardly the only issues worthy of discussion. If the Dems refuted abortion tomorrow and the GOP refuted their desire to torture, I'd still have major problems with both of them based upon my understanding of Catholic morality.
Mark S. (not for Shea) | 10.31.06 - 12:17 pm | #

Mark,
I was comparing the death penalty to torture in terms of its scope and impact, which is dwarfed almost into insignificance by abortion.

I just don't get this, maybe someone could explain it to me. So ANY grave evil advocated by a candidate is equivalent and cancels out??? I.e. one guy advocating nuking China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, is equivalent to the other guy advocating that a few people gossip maliciously?

(Never mind for the sake of argument that no one has specifically advocated torture per se, though they may be guilty of using tortured semantics)
Dave Mueller | Homepage | 10.31.06 - 3:32 pm | #

Mark Shea wrote, "No. The death penalty is not intrinsically immoral. Both abortion and torture are intrinsically immoral, according to Veritatis Splendor. In short, the application of the death penalty can be justified under certain circumstances. The application of torture can never be justified under any circumstances, according to the Church."
The position of the church on the death penalty has evolved over time and it has had a lot of definition added. I suspect as this completely new war on terror continues over time that torture will also find a lot of attention and definition. but for now, lets say torture is evil. I think that the current Pope would advocate that while it is evil and should not happen, that to vote in a manner that would promote abortion is a far greater evil.
The policy of the Republican party is that we do not torture so there is agreement. The policy of the Democratic party is that abortion of all types should be allowed on demand. The policy on torture is evolving today as the recent vote in congress with a strong bipartisan majority clearly showed. I suspect over time we will see both the Vatican and the USCCB try to work on this issue. But every Pope and Cardinal will tell you that Abortion is wrong in every way. Thousands of words have been written on it and it is the clear halocaust of our generation. I think that the Republican Party has done more in the face of strong opposition to try and change this than you give them credit for. I shudder to think of where we would be in this country without them at this time to fight for many of the non negotiable issues the Church stands for today.
Joeh | 10.31.06 - 9:41 pm | #

Joeh,

There is a lot more to the upcoming election than torture and abortion. I don't want to trivialize either of those issues, because they are of grave concern, but they aren't the only things that voters need to examine.
Mark S. (not for Shea) | 11.01.06 - 1:28 am | #

Indeed, we aren't called to be single issue voters. For those who are in a state that offers no pro-life candidates, consider voting for candidates who: support net neutrality, will strengthen the authority of federal regulatory agencies, will push our govt. to keep its promises to third world nations to eliminate poverty, will push congress to pass legislation to ban cloning, etc...
Eric Bohn | 11.01.06 - 9:44 am | #

It is a mistake to reduce the analysis to what the candidate supports (or opposes) rather than the impact the candidate might have on implementing (or preventing) a particular evil. Candidate A may take the wrong position on homosexual marriage, but does that disqualify him from being county property assessor? I would argue that it does not, because electing him as county property assessor will have at most a negligible impact on the legality of same-sex marriage. A proportionate reason to vote for him might be that he would actually eliminate the long-standing corruption in the county treasury. Admittedly, the good effect (eliminating corruption) is less grave than the bad one (legalizing same-sex marriage) but, it it is also far more likely to occur. In assessing the proportion between good and evil effects, one must consider both the gravity of the effect and the risk that it will occur. A certainty of achieving a lesser good can justify a small risk of a greater evil.
decker2003 | 11.02.06 - 9:01 pm | #