Dear George, I am looking forward to the first of the year to respond to your blogs. I would like to print them out and study what has been said over time. I've started a response, but it needs research. Have you given up on our diaglogue?
Best wishes for the Holy Christmas Season and a Happy New Year.
Susan
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
What About What the Bishops Have Said?
Dear George,
This is the third of my posts since you last sent your very thoughtful post.
I just mention this so you will know to look to the past two posts, also.
I feel fortunate that you are willing to have these discussions. Thank you.
We have had many discussions, but I don’t think you have responded to the following cautions the bishops have made in their document on voting––the document which we use for the resource for this discussion..
1. Catholics are not single-issue voters.
2. The second temptation in voting is to choose a pro-life candidate to protect innocent human life, and in doing so to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity.
3. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights––to basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive.
4. It is not enough to oppose evil, we must do good.
I look forward to your response.
Susan
This is the third of my posts since you last sent your very thoughtful post.
I just mention this so you will know to look to the past two posts, also.
I feel fortunate that you are willing to have these discussions. Thank you.
We have had many discussions, but I don’t think you have responded to the following cautions the bishops have made in their document on voting––the document which we use for the resource for this discussion..
1. Catholics are not single-issue voters.
2. The second temptation in voting is to choose a pro-life candidate to protect innocent human life, and in doing so to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity.
3. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights––to basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive.
4. It is not enough to oppose evil, we must do good.
I look forward to your response.
Susan
Monday, August 17, 2009
The Comparison of Voting for a Hitler to Voting for a Candidate that is Pro-Choice
Dear George,
With warm regards, I hope all is going well with you. I’m trying to tackle one feature of our discussion at a time. It takes a lot of thought to do just one part of our complicated discussion..
Your statement: “What if the US had already legalized the killing of Jews, and it was occurring at an enormous rate—4,000 deaths a day. In the upcoming election, two candidates are running for office. One candidate supports the killing of Jews and promises to enact a bill guaranteeing the slaughter for ages to come. That same candidate also happens to have great ideas about social reform. The other candidate’s ideas on social reform seem lacking. However, he is pro-Jew. He would certainly not expand the killing of Jews and would block any further expansion of such activities. Would you vote for the first candidate? “
Regarding your statement above, I know George, that is I can understand that because you believe, single mindedly, that abortion is the very worst that can occur of anything, this comparison seems true to you. For me this is actually a ridiculous concoction of a comparison. If a candidate promised to kill Jews and guarantee the slaughter for years to come, truly, no one would be able to vote for a candidate using such language because we would all believe it is murder. On the other hand, regarding our discussion of abortion (intrinsic evil) not all people think abortion is murder. Think about the following. Is there a God? Is there an afterlife? Did Jesus Christ found the Catholic Church? We cannot know that for sure. But we have faith that those questions are answered in the positive as absolutely true. However, not all have been given the gift of faith. And their difference with us is an honest one. So I will not judge a person who differs from me as being somehow less perceptive than me because he arrives at a different point of view. Thus I do not agree with your statement that, “Any man who does not see the value of human life at so vulnerable a stage cannot be trusted with the reins of the country.”
In addition, notably, I see the possibility of reducing abortions by a man that speaks as Obama does in the following statements, below this paragraph. I have more hope that abortions can be reduced by the measures he speaks of compared to a leader who only has vague hopes that the appointment of a judge is going to be able to change the law.
Obama has said, “…when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/17/obama-notre-dame-speech-f_n_204387.html
With warm regards, I hope all is going well with you. I’m trying to tackle one feature of our discussion at a time. It takes a lot of thought to do just one part of our complicated discussion..
Your statement: “What if the US had already legalized the killing of Jews, and it was occurring at an enormous rate—4,000 deaths a day. In the upcoming election, two candidates are running for office. One candidate supports the killing of Jews and promises to enact a bill guaranteeing the slaughter for ages to come. That same candidate also happens to have great ideas about social reform. The other candidate’s ideas on social reform seem lacking. However, he is pro-Jew. He would certainly not expand the killing of Jews and would block any further expansion of such activities. Would you vote for the first candidate? “
Regarding your statement above, I know George, that is I can understand that because you believe, single mindedly, that abortion is the very worst that can occur of anything, this comparison seems true to you. For me this is actually a ridiculous concoction of a comparison. If a candidate promised to kill Jews and guarantee the slaughter for years to come, truly, no one would be able to vote for a candidate using such language because we would all believe it is murder. On the other hand, regarding our discussion of abortion (intrinsic evil) not all people think abortion is murder. Think about the following. Is there a God? Is there an afterlife? Did Jesus Christ found the Catholic Church? We cannot know that for sure. But we have faith that those questions are answered in the positive as absolutely true. However, not all have been given the gift of faith. And their difference with us is an honest one. So I will not judge a person who differs from me as being somehow less perceptive than me because he arrives at a different point of view. Thus I do not agree with your statement that, “Any man who does not see the value of human life at so vulnerable a stage cannot be trusted with the reins of the country.”
In addition, notably, I see the possibility of reducing abortions by a man that speaks as Obama does in the following statements, below this paragraph. I have more hope that abortions can be reduced by the measures he speaks of compared to a leader who only has vague hopes that the appointment of a judge is going to be able to change the law.
Obama has said, “…when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.
That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.
So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/17/obama-notre-dame-speech-f_n_204387.html
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Why are intrinsic evils a government vote and love of fellow man is not?
Hi George,
You are indeed a member of a very loving giving family when it comes to your own personal generosity.
But why do you not feel the same responsibility to follow God's command to love your fellow man by voting. Through our vote we have the greatest opportunity to make some very real changes in the desparate lives of our fellow human beings.
On an aside--
I'm going to get a knee replacement so have patience with my response to you.
If you would like to send me your email address, I can notify you when I have a response for you. I do get notification when you post. My email is sg.mccarthy@verizon.net.
You are indeed a member of a very loving giving family when it comes to your own personal generosity.
But why do you not feel the same responsibility to follow God's command to love your fellow man by voting. Through our vote we have the greatest opportunity to make some very real changes in the desparate lives of our fellow human beings.
On an aside--
I'm going to get a knee replacement so have patience with my response to you.
If you would like to send me your email address, I can notify you when I have a response for you. I do get notification when you post. My email is sg.mccarthy@verizon.net.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
George
(1 of 6)
Dear Susan,
Thanks again for your response and for your compliment. I also greatly respect your deep and abiding concern for all of humanity. Fair warning: this is a long post. I will be posting it in six parts. I felt there was so much to address in you last post. I hope this post begins to get behind some of the underlying issues.
You ask if by "absolute priority" I mean "exclusive treatment." If you prefer to use that phrase, I think you understand what I'm saying, though it must be qualified. I do not mean that our only concern should be stopping abortion to the exclusion of other concerns such as the welfare of the poor. We should clearly be concerned with both.
Our actions and choices, though, are our own. We can easily be concerned with both, but we cannot force others to share our concerns. That is why this discussion is necessary. How does one vote when both candidates only support one or the other? It is in this hypothetical scenario that I would say we must vote first according to the candidates' stances on intrinsic evils to the exclusion of non-intrinsic evils.
Perhaps a few more concrete examples will help to illustrate. Candidate A supports abortion and has a good policy for the poor. Candidate B rejects abortion and has a bad policy for the poor. Setting aside that we're already comparing apples to oranges (support of abortion is objectively bad, but whether a policy for the poor is good or bad is a subjective, personal judgement made by the voter), let's assume that everyone feels this way. Beyond these facts, we know nothing further about the candidates. In this scenario, because abortion is an intrinsic evil, the Catholic voter would be obliged to vote against Candidate A.
A second scenario: Neither Candidate A nor B supports abortion and both have moderately good policies for the poor. In this case, the Catholic voter is free to vote for either candidate.
George said...
(2 of 6)
A third scenario: Candidate A supports abortion and has a good policy for the poor. Candidate B also supports abortion and has a bad policy for the poor. Because both candidates support an intrinsic evil, we are forced into the position we have been discussing in the bishops' document (see quote below). In this scenario, it is up to us to determine for whom to vote, or we may choose the extraordinary measure of not voting. A Catholic could, in good conscience, vote for Candidate A. However, since a policy for the poor may be subjectively (personally) judged to be good or bad, a second Catholic could legitimately vote for Candidate B in good conscience, if s/he felt Candidate B's position on the poor was not as bad as everyone thinks it is. Finally, a third Catholic could, in good conscience, abstain from voting. While deciding for whom to vote, the Catholic voter should also keep in mind that a major goal would be to minimize the promulgation of the intrinsic evil(s) in question.
Note that it is really only in this scenario that a Catholic could in good conscience abstain from voting. The bishops' entire document is outlining our responsibility to vote. If this is the exception, then as I have said previously, there must be a grave reason for allowing it. That is why they say, "[W]hen all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma."
You are correct in pointing out that logically, it does not necessarily follow that a dilemma only exists in this scenario (wherein all candidates favor an intrinsic evil). It is possible, based on that sentence alone, to conclude that a dilemma could also be faced when only some or no candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil. However, the sentence that you highlighted for the purpose of bringing the previous into context only seems to support the idea that the dilemma is unique to this situation. "The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position...."
This passage does not merely apply to those who give abortion an "absolute priority." When they say "the conscientious voter," they mean every Catholic. They are, after all, calling us to be conscientious voters. That means all voters face a dilemma when all candidates support an intrinsic evil. Why is this dilemma so serious that we may rightfully abstain from voting? It is precisely because of the candidates' positions on intrinsic evils. No, the document does not say that the dilemma is unique to this situation, but that is the clear implication. I see no other reasonable explanation. There would be no excuse to not vote in an election where at least one of the candidates does not support an intrinsic evil.
George said...
(3 of 6)
Now, regarding your comments about Hitler and whether or not you would vote for him, you have said you would certainly not. You seem to justify that by making some assumptions about his character; you state, for example, that he could not have been acting according to his conscience. It seems to me that you need to make these assumptions in order to justify your position. The fact of the matter is though, that no human being is wholly evil. Even Hitler surely had moments of goodness – kindness shown to his compatriots, etc. I submit that it is entirely possible that he was following his conscience. You say he could not have been, but I think you fail to realize how easy it is to have a malformed conscience. He believed in Darwinian evolution – the advancement of a species through the survival of the fittest and the perishing of the weak. He thought he was doing mankind a favor by speeding evolution along and destroying what he saw as the weaker members of the species. He was likely acting in complete accord with his conscience. The problem was this: his conscience was formed according to Darwin rather than the Church or even simply natural law.
What it boils down to is that you and I would not vote for Hitler precisely because of his crimes against humanity, regardless of his state of conscience. It doesn't matter how he felt about what he was doing. It was wrong. The exact same holds true for the current debate. We had a choice to vote for or against a candidate who supports crimes against humanity. Just as Hitler saw nothing wrong with the slaughter of an entire category of people, so Obama and so many of the democratic candidates for office see nothing wrong with the slaughter of an entire category of people. If you are willing to give consideration to candidates who support abortion, then it would be consistent with your line of thinking to give consideration to Hitler, provided he was acting according to conscience, which is entirely possible.
Somehow the nation wants to think the abortion holocaust is different. It's easy to get fired up about people who have faces, whose dead bodies we see in pictures, but it's also all too easy to forget about the babies in the womb or to think of them as categorically different than the Jews – a blob of tissue, or a body without a soul.
The truth is that it doesn't matter what candidates believe about ensoulment (when the body is given a soul) or anything else. Their actions are wrong and should not be supported.
Your view of conscience comes from a mistaken interpretation that has been prevalent in American culture and abroad. One can hardly blame any one person for the origination of this interpretation, which arose as a result of the so-called "conscience clause" in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. The "spirit" of the interpretation was already alive in the turbulent '60s prior to the council. You are correct when you say that one must act according to conscience, but you are wrong in assuming that we do not need to hold others accountable simply because they are or may be acting according to conscience. Prior to acting according to our conscience, we have the imperative duty to properly form our conscience. Furthermore, we have the duty to instruct the ignorant. Said another way, in making moral choices, we must appeal to our conscience finally as the arbiter of truth, but prior to doing so, it needs to be well formed by consultation with the magisterial teachings of the Church.
George said...
(4 of 6)
You say, for example, "Each person decides one's own conscience and must act accordingly." It is not clear whether you are making this statement or are assigning the statement to a hypothetical individual in your third example. However, I will say that we must not decide our own conscience. That would be a grave error called moral relativism in which the truth becomes entirely personal. We profess to be Catholics. That means we hold as absolutely true the existence of God, His Son, Jesus Christ, the Incarnation, the death and resurrection, the sinfulness of adultery, abortion, etc. By affirming those things, we are necessarily also saying that everyone who does not believe these things is wrong. That is the nature of the claim of faith. We are right. If we didn't believe that, we wouldn't be Catholic. If we have access to these great truths, it is our duty to impress them upon others – not forcefully as the mistakes of the Inquisition illustrate, but with love and compassion. We are also obliged to act and vote according to those beliefs insofar as they overlap with the public square.
Furthermore, the abortion debate is not even an imposition of our religion on others. It is about the truth evident in natural law that all humans deserve the right to life. You say "you and I have faith that the fetus is fully human," but I say that it's not faith. It's a scientific fact. Regardless of the state of the soul, the human being is biologically complete and deserving of life. Our constitution grants us this right. How is it that politicians fail so miserably to recognize this right for the most vulnerable?
Keep in mind too, that separation of Church and State does not preclude the use of appeals to religious sensibilities in the public square. It means the State can't favor any one religion. That's all. We are still free to vote and act as Catholics in the political sphere, just as Jews are free to vote and act according to their beliefs, just as Muslims are, etc.
One final word on conscience, although a person who acts according to a malformed conscience would, in all likelihood, not be held accountable before God, s/he would nevertheless be held accountable for any willful ignorance. Those who have heard the truth about abortion and obstinately persist in their beliefs are very likely guilty of never having spent the time to think long and hard about the issue. So, even these people do not get off free.
George said...
(5 of 6)
Regarding our different views, you ask for clarification about my view by saying, "The value to you of the lives of the unborn is priceless in comparison to the suffering and death of the people of the world?" This is not accurate. I value all human life. A single death is a tragedy. You say, "For me, no single segment of humanity can be more important to me than all the people of God," and I say, "Amen!" I pray, just as you do, for an end to suffering and death. It pains me – indeed, it often brings me to tears – to think, for example, of the poor in Haiti who eat cookies made of dirt just to satisfy their aching hunger. My wife and I donate to causes like Food for the Poor, Catholic Charities, and Catholic Relief Services. If we had more time (we are just beginning our married lives and have a little one) we would certainly consider helping in other ways. I commend all the efforts that local communities engage in for the aid of the poor, including soup kitchens, places like Catholic Charities, Christmas House, and Goodwill. I participated in Habitat for Humanity while in college. My wife and I also recycle very meticulously. We have bins for everything we can recycle, and we throw out biodegradable scraps on a compost heap. We only have need to set our trash bin out once a month. Finally, we believe, like many that the war in Iraq was started under questionable pretenses. (I would not go so far as to say it was or was not unjust, because I'm not privy to all the information President Bush was.) These are just our meager efforts to improve the world provided by way of example. For me, it is not "either-or;" it's "both-and." We must help the poor and alleviate the pain of the suffering. We must help the environment, and we must avoid war wherever prudent. We must also fight to end abortion. They are all part of the same Christianity. I believe that is something you and I can agree on. As you rightly point out, this is a major focus in the bishops' document.
The problem is that we often don't have a good candidate to vote for who upholds all of these values. When we are forced into the unfortunate predicament wherein we have to choose between a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil and a candidate who does not, we have to give that absolute priority (exclusive treatment) just as we would if Hitler were running for office. That does not mean we do not care for the poor and suffering, just as a vote for a pro-abortion candidate would not mean we condone abortion.
When faced with a choice such as the two main candidates in the last election, we should be able to see that Obama supports an intrinsic evil (abortion) while McCain does not. Regardless of his stance on other issues, Obama's stance on abortion should disqualify him. That means we vote for McCain or one of the other third-party candidates. If we find the other candidates' approaches to the poor less than satisfactory, we simply do our best to supplement by writing to our representatives to encourage them and by doing all that is within our power to help the poor in a morally responsible manner.
George said...
(6 of 6)
You ask, "[A]re you saying regardless of all other considerations ... you would not vote for a pro-choice candidate even if there would be only one abortion during his tenure in office?" I would go further and say that, unless all candidates for office supported intrinsic evils (in which case I would be free to discerningly choose from among them) I would not vote for a pro-choice candidate even if no abortions would occur during his tenure, just as I would not vote for Hitler even if no Jews would be killed during his time in office. Any man who does not see the value of human life at so vulnerable a stage cannot be trusted with the reins of the country.
For further clarification regarding intrinsic evils, I use this phrase in place of abortion because abortion is not the only issue that should concern us in this way. Other intrinsic evils which should disqualify a candidate include physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and gay marriage. The focus of this discussion has been on abortion simply because that has been the topic of this past election, but the fervor of my argument would be equal if the issue were any of the above.
Again as in a previous post, I point out that your argument from the seeming hopelessness of the situation is just that. We cannot lose hope that abortion laws can be changed, just as we cannot lose hope that the poor will be better cared for. We cannot abandon the principle that intrinsic evils deserve absolute priority just because change is not likely.
You ask "What about the commandment of Jesus to care for our fellow man? Does this commandment fall by the wayside because of some vague hope to change a law?" I say absolutely not. We must work to feed the poor even if our president won't. We are Christ's hands and feet. We can write to our representatives. We can start our own efforts in the local community. (By the way, I apologize, I cannot remember its name, but I saw in the bulletin that you are involved in a new initiative for the poor of our community. Thank you!) The political realm is not the only or even the primary way in which we ought to be caring for the poor.
You ask, "Where does it say that pre-born humans have absolute rights over all other humanity?" I say nowhere. We protect all human life insofar as we are able.
Finally, I hope that our discussion may assist you and your brother in understanding one another better.
God bless,
George
Friday, May 15, 2009
Dear George,
We see the world so differently. Nevertheless, I have great respect for the truly good person you are.
I will first respond to your statements and then discuss our different view of the world.
1. You say, “an absolute priority must be given to preventing intrinsic evils.” Priority means a preferential treatment. Priority or preferential treatment implies that there are other considerations over which intrinsic evil is given priority. It appears to me through our discussion that you do not mean preferential treatment—you mean exclusive treatment. But I must ask you, is that what you mean?
2. Now, regarding the Hitler metaphor. I would under no circumstance vote for
Hitler. He as a whole person can only be considered evil in his manner of
justifying what he had to know was truly evil, that is, the slaughter of the Jews, the priests, and the good people that disagreed with him. So he could not be counted on to do any good. He could not have been following his conscience.
But conversely, consider a pro-choice candidate. He/she can be a totally good
person--however much we disagree with that person’s belief system. Consider the following examples: 1. A pro-choice candidate can believe a fetus is not a human person with a soul. 2. A person, though believing himself that abortion is wrong, might believe that truth cannot be absolutely known. Therefore, if truth cannot be absolutely known, one would commit an egregious error forcing one’s belief on others. Such a person looks at the errors others have made such as in the inquisition. In the inquisition people were burned at the stake because the inquisitors believed they had the absolute truth, which had to be absolutely defended. 3. Or a person taking the oath of office to follow the constitution of the United States would believe he had taken a sacred oath not to force one person’s religion on another. Each person decides one’s own conscience and must act accordingly.
On the other hand, you and I have faith that the fetus is fully human and abortion is murder. Thus we must fight almightily to save those humans. We believe that as a nation we stop murderers. Thus, we ask, how are abortions any different? Abortion is murder. So each of us from our own belief system arrive at different conclusions regarding legislation. But that does not make the person who believes differently than us deserve to be likened to Hitler. That person is following his conscience. Our church believes that, in the final analysis, we must follow, rightly or wrongly, what our informed conscience dictates. St. Peter would open the gates of heaven to such a soul-searching candidate. Unlike Hitler, such a pro-choice candidate could be trusted to be a good, possibly even holy person working to help others.
3. Regarding our other discussion about the inference of the Bishop's statement
"When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious
voter faces a dilemma." If you read this statement in context, the next statement is "The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods." Isn't the dilemma in this passage specifically relating to a certain person to decide to vote or not to vote? The dilemma is for a conscientious person like yourself for whom abortion is the "absolute priority" to try to decide whether or not to vote. That’s the specific dilemma for people like yourself, is it not? This passage only addresses if both candidates positions favor an intrinsic evil. The dilemma is very specific. It applies to the dilemma of a particular kind of individual and the choice he must make to vote or not vote. You are reading into the passage what is not there. You add to the statement suggesting that there would not be a dilemma if one candidate does not favor an intrinsic evil. You say you would necessarily vote for the one who does not favor an intrinsic evil thus no dilemma. You’ve gone beyond what the bishops say in the passage. They wouldn’t have hinted that there is no dilemma if one was pro-choice and one is pro-life. They would have said it. The bishops never say you cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate even if one of the candidates is pro-life.
4. Now regarding our different view of the world. You see the murder of the pre-born by the red shirt theory. The value to you of the lives of the unborn is priceless in comparison to ??? the suffering and death of the people of the world (which includes the pre-born)? I believe that is what you are saying. For me, no single segment of humanity can be more important to me than all the people of God. I think this view is where we differ.
Do we have a different view of the grand suffering of people through out the world? Whenever you write you do not express much concern for “feeding the poor/caring for the environment/stopping a questionable war,” as you put it. Do you see the suffering of the world casually? Perhaps you see troubled others, as for example, some people do when talking about welfare. Some believe that people need to take care of themselves. Such a view could certainly account for our different worldview. You see the red shirt metaphor as just applying to abortion. I see caring about life from birth to death, which the bishops speak of in their document, as deserving of my greatest respect and action.
Perhaps this is the great divide between our conclusions. That is, we view the world’s need differently. I think it needs more care. Do you believe it needs less care? I read where you say you care for the needs of other. But it seems when it comes to voting, you are exclusionary considering only the hope you can do something to prevent abortions by choosing a candidate who professes to be pro-life..
4. The second way we seem to be unable to agree seems to me to be your sole focus on the words “intrinsic evil, and the absolute priority which you give these words.
For the sake of understanding, are you saying regardless of all other considerations if there were to be only one abortion of a pre-born, your position is absolute. You would not vote for a pro-choice candidate even if there would be only one abortion during his tenure in office?
5. How much can be accomplished? Are there better ways to accomplish the reductions in abortion than trying to get judges to change Roe v. Wade such as reducing poverty which is a large cause of abortions? Even pro-life appointed judges, such as Scalia, believe that once appointed they must honorably interpret the constitution wherever logically that leads them. Pro-life judges have been appointed and little progress is made. Abortions continue in their great numbers and all the other Christian concerns are left in the dust. If the intrinsic evil is not corrected by voting for a pro-life candidate, what’s the purpose? What about the commandment of Jesus to care for our fellow man? Does this commandment fall by the wayside because of some vague hope to change a law?
Where does it say that pre-born humans have absolute rights over all other humanity?
5. Now to a side discussion, how some in the church lost Christ’ message to care for one another. The bishops were driven to emphasize the protection of the unborn. Strong language was needed. Tremendous education went forward to protect the unborn. Rightly so. Then this focus got caught up in politics. It was an issue that people could unite over. Who isn’t horrified by the murder of millions of unborn innocents? Then somehow Jesus message to care for all of life was lost for a segment of Catholics.
Reread the bishop’s document. The message is clearly there. The second wrong temptation is to choose a pro-life candidate to protect innocent human life, and in doing so to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive. This is Christianity.
There are some bishops who like yourself see no other issue than abortion. I believe the document came out with words that allowed bishops like our bishop who sees abortion as the only issue to be able to vote for the document. I believe the hope was to obtain a unanimous vote for the document, which they did. But the absolute necessity to care about human life from conception to death is equally there, in the document, if one is not closed to finding those passages. The document clearly states to avoid the temptation to choose a pro-life candidate to protect innocent human life, and in doing so to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive.
Thank you for your continuing discussion. Your position is the same as my dear brother who lives the very essence of his life defending the same position as you.
We see the world so differently. Nevertheless, I have great respect for the truly good person you are.
I will first respond to your statements and then discuss our different view of the world.
1. You say, “an absolute priority must be given to preventing intrinsic evils.” Priority means a preferential treatment. Priority or preferential treatment implies that there are other considerations over which intrinsic evil is given priority. It appears to me through our discussion that you do not mean preferential treatment—you mean exclusive treatment. But I must ask you, is that what you mean?
2. Now, regarding the Hitler metaphor. I would under no circumstance vote for
Hitler. He as a whole person can only be considered evil in his manner of
justifying what he had to know was truly evil, that is, the slaughter of the Jews, the priests, and the good people that disagreed with him. So he could not be counted on to do any good. He could not have been following his conscience.
But conversely, consider a pro-choice candidate. He/she can be a totally good
person--however much we disagree with that person’s belief system. Consider the following examples: 1. A pro-choice candidate can believe a fetus is not a human person with a soul. 2. A person, though believing himself that abortion is wrong, might believe that truth cannot be absolutely known. Therefore, if truth cannot be absolutely known, one would commit an egregious error forcing one’s belief on others. Such a person looks at the errors others have made such as in the inquisition. In the inquisition people were burned at the stake because the inquisitors believed they had the absolute truth, which had to be absolutely defended. 3. Or a person taking the oath of office to follow the constitution of the United States would believe he had taken a sacred oath not to force one person’s religion on another. Each person decides one’s own conscience and must act accordingly.
On the other hand, you and I have faith that the fetus is fully human and abortion is murder. Thus we must fight almightily to save those humans. We believe that as a nation we stop murderers. Thus, we ask, how are abortions any different? Abortion is murder. So each of us from our own belief system arrive at different conclusions regarding legislation. But that does not make the person who believes differently than us deserve to be likened to Hitler. That person is following his conscience. Our church believes that, in the final analysis, we must follow, rightly or wrongly, what our informed conscience dictates. St. Peter would open the gates of heaven to such a soul-searching candidate. Unlike Hitler, such a pro-choice candidate could be trusted to be a good, possibly even holy person working to help others.
3. Regarding our other discussion about the inference of the Bishop's statement
"When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious
voter faces a dilemma." If you read this statement in context, the next statement is "The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate or, after careful deliberation, may decide to vote for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods." Isn't the dilemma in this passage specifically relating to a certain person to decide to vote or not to vote? The dilemma is for a conscientious person like yourself for whom abortion is the "absolute priority" to try to decide whether or not to vote. That’s the specific dilemma for people like yourself, is it not? This passage only addresses if both candidates positions favor an intrinsic evil. The dilemma is very specific. It applies to the dilemma of a particular kind of individual and the choice he must make to vote or not vote. You are reading into the passage what is not there. You add to the statement suggesting that there would not be a dilemma if one candidate does not favor an intrinsic evil. You say you would necessarily vote for the one who does not favor an intrinsic evil thus no dilemma. You’ve gone beyond what the bishops say in the passage. They wouldn’t have hinted that there is no dilemma if one was pro-choice and one is pro-life. They would have said it. The bishops never say you cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate even if one of the candidates is pro-life.
4. Now regarding our different view of the world. You see the murder of the pre-born by the red shirt theory. The value to you of the lives of the unborn is priceless in comparison to ??? the suffering and death of the people of the world (which includes the pre-born)? I believe that is what you are saying. For me, no single segment of humanity can be more important to me than all the people of God. I think this view is where we differ.
Do we have a different view of the grand suffering of people through out the world? Whenever you write you do not express much concern for “feeding the poor/caring for the environment/stopping a questionable war,” as you put it. Do you see the suffering of the world casually? Perhaps you see troubled others, as for example, some people do when talking about welfare. Some believe that people need to take care of themselves. Such a view could certainly account for our different worldview. You see the red shirt metaphor as just applying to abortion. I see caring about life from birth to death, which the bishops speak of in their document, as deserving of my greatest respect and action.
Perhaps this is the great divide between our conclusions. That is, we view the world’s need differently. I think it needs more care. Do you believe it needs less care? I read where you say you care for the needs of other. But it seems when it comes to voting, you are exclusionary considering only the hope you can do something to prevent abortions by choosing a candidate who professes to be pro-life..
4. The second way we seem to be unable to agree seems to me to be your sole focus on the words “intrinsic evil, and the absolute priority which you give these words.
For the sake of understanding, are you saying regardless of all other considerations if there were to be only one abortion of a pre-born, your position is absolute. You would not vote for a pro-choice candidate even if there would be only one abortion during his tenure in office?
5. How much can be accomplished? Are there better ways to accomplish the reductions in abortion than trying to get judges to change Roe v. Wade such as reducing poverty which is a large cause of abortions? Even pro-life appointed judges, such as Scalia, believe that once appointed they must honorably interpret the constitution wherever logically that leads them. Pro-life judges have been appointed and little progress is made. Abortions continue in their great numbers and all the other Christian concerns are left in the dust. If the intrinsic evil is not corrected by voting for a pro-life candidate, what’s the purpose? What about the commandment of Jesus to care for our fellow man? Does this commandment fall by the wayside because of some vague hope to change a law?
Where does it say that pre-born humans have absolute rights over all other humanity?
5. Now to a side discussion, how some in the church lost Christ’ message to care for one another. The bishops were driven to emphasize the protection of the unborn. Strong language was needed. Tremendous education went forward to protect the unborn. Rightly so. Then this focus got caught up in politics. It was an issue that people could unite over. Who isn’t horrified by the murder of millions of unborn innocents? Then somehow Jesus message to care for all of life was lost for a segment of Catholics.
Reread the bishop’s document. The message is clearly there. The second wrong temptation is to choose a pro-life candidate to protect innocent human life, and in doing so to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive. This is Christianity.
There are some bishops who like yourself see no other issue than abortion. I believe the document came out with words that allowed bishops like our bishop who sees abortion as the only issue to be able to vote for the document. I believe the hope was to obtain a unanimous vote for the document, which they did. But the absolute necessity to care about human life from conception to death is equally there, in the document, if one is not closed to finding those passages. The document clearly states to avoid the temptation to choose a pro-life candidate to protect innocent human life, and in doing so to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive.
Thank you for your continuing discussion. Your position is the same as my dear brother who lives the very essence of his life defending the same position as you.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
George's Reply 4/28/2009
Dear Susan,
I apologize for the delay in my response again. Life is busy! Thank you for our continued discussion.
I would like to address this paragraph from your latest post:
“I accept that the church has designated certain things under the definition that you have given as ‘intrinsic evil.’ And I would agree that intrinsic evils must be given greater weight – but not to the elimination of all other considerations.”
They must not simply be given greater weight. They must be given absolute priority. I’d like to illustrate the difference with a trivial example. Consider a man who is given a choice between a red shirt and several blue shirts. This man happens to like the color red, so he gives greater weight to it. If given the choice between a red shirt and three blue shirts, he would choose the red shirt, because he likes the color much better. However, if he is to choose between a red shirt and one hundred blue shirts, he would choose the blue shirts, because the deal is simply too great to ignore.
Now, another man is given the same choices, but he gives the red shirt absolute priority. In both cases, he chooses the single red shirt, because its value to him is priceless in comparison to even one million shirts.
In my analogy, the choice to vote against intrinsic evils is, of course, the red shirt. That does not mean that the blue shirts are worthless. However, given the choice between two goods – preventing the promulgation of intrinsic evils on one hand and feeding the poor/caring for the environment/stopping a questionable war on the other – an absolute priority must be given to preventing intrinsic evils.
That is why we may consider voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil only if all other candidates do as well. In such a case, the absolute priority is no longer meaningful and a choice must be made based on minimizing the promulgation of intrinsic evil.
Susan, you and I live in difficult times. In an ideal world, we would always be given the choice between two upstanding, moral individuals, or at the very least individuals who do not support intrinsic evils. In such a case, both choices would be legitimate. But, we are not justified in voting for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils just because the pickin’s are slim. It doesn’t matter how inept the other candidates may be; we cannot turn our support to someone who supports intrinsically evil acts.
I would also like to mention again one other point. You never answered whether you would vote for Hitler if he were to run for office and the US had already legalized the killing of Jews. Admittedly, it is unfair to use the name of Hitler which has such a stigma, but if I rephrase the question, does it make it any easier?
Consider the following. What if the US had already legalized the killing of Jews, and it was occurring at an enormous rate – 4,000 deaths a day. In the upcoming election, two candidates are running for office. One candidate supports the killing of Jews and promises to enact a bill guaranteeing the slaughter for ages to come. That same candidate also happens to have great ideas about social reform. The other candidate’s ideas on social reform seem lacking. However, he is pro-Jew. He would certainly not expand the killing of Jews and would block any further expansion of such activities. Would you vote for the first candidate?
Would a pre-existing law allowing the killing of Jews have made the outcome of Hitler’s reign any better? The truth is, the Nazi regime was gravely immoral regardless of what came before it. Abortion is also a grave immorality. It matters not that the laws already existed or that the other candidate might not have done anything to stop abortion. When it comes down to it, one is voting for a man who approves of the killing of Jews/pre-born children, whether or not one approves of that action in itself.
Finally, as to where I see this in the bishops’ document, perhaps it will help to think of it this way. The document states “[W]hen all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma.” I would ask: What happens when at least one of the candidates does not hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil? This statement implies that there would not be a dilemma. The dilemma arises only because all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil. If there is no dilemma when one candidate does not favor an intrinsic evil, then obviously it is because of that candidate. He or she has suddenly become an easy option and therefore removed the dilemma.
I look forward to your response and our continued conversation.
God bless,
George
I apologize for the delay in my response again. Life is busy! Thank you for our continued discussion.
I would like to address this paragraph from your latest post:
“I accept that the church has designated certain things under the definition that you have given as ‘intrinsic evil.’ And I would agree that intrinsic evils must be given greater weight – but not to the elimination of all other considerations.”
They must not simply be given greater weight. They must be given absolute priority. I’d like to illustrate the difference with a trivial example. Consider a man who is given a choice between a red shirt and several blue shirts. This man happens to like the color red, so he gives greater weight to it. If given the choice between a red shirt and three blue shirts, he would choose the red shirt, because he likes the color much better. However, if he is to choose between a red shirt and one hundred blue shirts, he would choose the blue shirts, because the deal is simply too great to ignore.
Now, another man is given the same choices, but he gives the red shirt absolute priority. In both cases, he chooses the single red shirt, because its value to him is priceless in comparison to even one million shirts.
In my analogy, the choice to vote against intrinsic evils is, of course, the red shirt. That does not mean that the blue shirts are worthless. However, given the choice between two goods – preventing the promulgation of intrinsic evils on one hand and feeding the poor/caring for the environment/stopping a questionable war on the other – an absolute priority must be given to preventing intrinsic evils.
That is why we may consider voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil only if all other candidates do as well. In such a case, the absolute priority is no longer meaningful and a choice must be made based on minimizing the promulgation of intrinsic evil.
Susan, you and I live in difficult times. In an ideal world, we would always be given the choice between two upstanding, moral individuals, or at the very least individuals who do not support intrinsic evils. In such a case, both choices would be legitimate. But, we are not justified in voting for a candidate who supports intrinsic evils just because the pickin’s are slim. It doesn’t matter how inept the other candidates may be; we cannot turn our support to someone who supports intrinsically evil acts.
I would also like to mention again one other point. You never answered whether you would vote for Hitler if he were to run for office and the US had already legalized the killing of Jews. Admittedly, it is unfair to use the name of Hitler which has such a stigma, but if I rephrase the question, does it make it any easier?
Consider the following. What if the US had already legalized the killing of Jews, and it was occurring at an enormous rate – 4,000 deaths a day. In the upcoming election, two candidates are running for office. One candidate supports the killing of Jews and promises to enact a bill guaranteeing the slaughter for ages to come. That same candidate also happens to have great ideas about social reform. The other candidate’s ideas on social reform seem lacking. However, he is pro-Jew. He would certainly not expand the killing of Jews and would block any further expansion of such activities. Would you vote for the first candidate?
Would a pre-existing law allowing the killing of Jews have made the outcome of Hitler’s reign any better? The truth is, the Nazi regime was gravely immoral regardless of what came before it. Abortion is also a grave immorality. It matters not that the laws already existed or that the other candidate might not have done anything to stop abortion. When it comes down to it, one is voting for a man who approves of the killing of Jews/pre-born children, whether or not one approves of that action in itself.
Finally, as to where I see this in the bishops’ document, perhaps it will help to think of it this way. The document states “[W]hen all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma.” I would ask: What happens when at least one of the candidates does not hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil? This statement implies that there would not be a dilemma. The dilemma arises only because all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil. If there is no dilemma when one candidate does not favor an intrinsic evil, then obviously it is because of that candidate. He or she has suddenly become an easy option and therefore removed the dilemma.
I look forward to your response and our continued conversation.
God bless,
George
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)