“Care for the environment represents a challenge for all of humanity. It is a matter of a common and universal duty, that of respecting a common good.” (466)¹
Taking our inspiration from the above quote, from The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, let us – you and I, our leaders, and all Americans – get out the red, white, and blue, wave it high because it is time for this great nation to accept the challenge – the challenge to lead the world into independence from non-renewable sources of energy and into clean air. Our great country has an abundance of talented and creative citizens, excellence of resources, the technical ability and the standing of the United States to lead the world in such an effort. We have the resources: we need the leadership.
What does independence from non-renewable energy look like? It looks like windmills blowing in the wind, solar panels glistening on rooftops, geothermal steam rising into the blue sky, hydroelectric dams and wave action, heat-based energy systems, uses of corn and other plants, and many more jobs in our country – to name a few of the exciting possibilities.
Individually and collectively with other countries, we could achieve colossal success developing renewable energy to replace, for example, the much hated gasoline that we have to depend upon. We’ve proved that we can pursue a monumental effort. For example, consider the war in Iraq. When the war is over, and we are still paying retirement and health care costs for the deserving servicemen and replenishing our war machine, it is estimated, the war will have cost us three trillion dollars. When we want to do something, nothing can stop us.
Then if we want to reduce our dependence on oil, gas, and coal, what must be done? When we think of those dwindling supplies of non-renewable energy resources, we tend to think about light bulbs and less fuel in cars, which is good. However, we cannot limit our efforts to an unorganized plan or just for the United States. We are dependent on how other nations also respond. “ A consensus among energy experts today is that national energy independence is an unattainable goal and, in any case, a foolish idea, because the world is too economically interconnected through trade in resources.2 We have to work urgently and in solidarity with other nations. This is a world problem.
What do we need to do now? Clearly energy resources are an issue for the coming election. We will have to form our conscience, balancing issues. It isn’t easy. We need to consider that the U.S. Bishops united declared, “Catholics are not single issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support…both opposing evil and doing good are essential.”3 What do the bishops tell us about how we can decide between the intrinsic evil of abortion, for example, against say energy, health care, the war in Iraq and other compelling issues? The bishops tell us, “A voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”3 Political decisions, they say, require the exercise of a well-formed conscience aided by prudence, which is the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason. The bishops do not tell us how to vote; they give us guidance in forming our own individual conscience.
“Only in dialogue with God does the human being find his truth, from which he draws inspiration and norms to make plans for the future of the world, which is the garden that God has given him to keep and till.” (452)1 God made it, and it was good.
1 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
2 Richard J. Green and Wil Lepkowski, “Forstalling Disaster,” America, March 31,2008, pp 9-12.
3 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship.” November 14, 2007.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Susan,
I owe you a thank you as you have caused my to reflect more than I have in a very long time. I received your message on energy in my bulletin. I must say that I agree with you that we need to work on our country's energy policy. I do however feel that parts of your message could be a little misunderstood.The bishops do say that Catholics are not single issue voters and a candidate's position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter's support. A voter should not use a candidate's opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. According to the Bishops these prudential issues are open to discussion/debate. In other words, you and I must agree that the poor must be helped, but it is possible for us to disagree on the best way to do it. The problem morally would be if a candidate said "forget the poor" and did nothing. Equally important from the Bishops,but not stated in your message is: There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons.These are called "intrinsically evil" actions.They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. A prime example is the taking of innocent human life as in abortion and euthanasia. I think that speaks for itself.
I quote John Paul II: The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-- for example the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture-- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.
My fear is that by reading the insert, someone could misunderstand that prudential issues can be placed on the level of those that are intrinsically evil. They could then with flawed conscience feel justified to vote for someone who supports these issues. Maybe closer to November it would be prudent for us to insert a Catholic voter guide. What do you think?
Dear Warren,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. There are many parts to this discussion that must be weighed. For instance, how much might an elected office holder be able to actually do. The bishops discuss two temptations we could make when choosing candidates. One is the temptation to choose a pro-choice candidate and dismiss destruction of innocent human life. The second temptation is to choose a pro-life candidate to protect innocent human life and to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. Further the bishops say, “The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic good that every human person needs to live and thrive.” True, the taking of human life carries more weight in our decision-making. It’s not a simple decision we must make when voting.
We did insert copies of the Bishop’s summary of their reflection “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” in the Bulletin the Sunday before the election, May 4th. Kim Swaner, our director of Faith Formation for the parish is planning a program with speakers before the fall election, and we will again insert the summary then.
I appreciate your thoughts. We do need to have good dialogue on this voting decision, such as you have provided.
Susan
Susan,
I totally agree with what you say about the Bishop's statements. The problem is that only part of their teaching is being stated. First, I must say that I can not imagine any candidate for office that would not have some impact on a prolife or proabortion issue. Should there ever be one, I cannot imagine that candidate effecting an energy issue either. Regarding the two temptations, I, of course, agree with the Bishop's statement but believe your message may be easily misunderstood. Regarding the first temptation, Teaching makes it very clear we are not to support abortion. I refer you back to my previous post. It matters not what the candidate's position is on other issues, if he supports abortion. This candidate's views on other issues are considered untrue and an illusion. Supporting such a candidate is, in effect, supporting abortion and may put one's soul in peril. In Living the Gospel of Life(1998), the Bishops say supporting such a candidate would be like saying you can build a house without a foundation, simply because all of the other parts are strong. As for the second temptation, it is equally important but only related to the first in one way. Just because I must under no circumstances fall prey to the first, that doesn't mean I should accept the second. If a prolife candidate takes a position on an issue,that in prudently forming my conscience, I feel is morally unaccepptable, I should withhold my support. The difference is that with the second temptation, you and I may or may not have different views on an issue using prudential judgment,with one of us supporting a candidate and the other not. As for the first temptation, abortion is unique among policy issues. From a Catholic point of view, a candidate is not making an application of principle to a specific situation. All instances of abortion are totally wrong. It is non negotiable. Again, my concern is that your message could lead to confusion on Church teaching. I believe your message says way too little about our responsibility to not support a proabortion candidate. One could, in fact, be lead to mistakenly believe that avoiding temptation number two is a valid reason to support a proabortion candidate, possibly even encouraging one to do so.
Warren
Dear Warren. I am carefully preparing a response It may be a couple of days. Thank you for your continuing care. Susan
Dear Warren,
Fortunately for our dialogue, we agree to agree on the bishop’s statements.
I recognize your concern, that I only discuss part of the bishop’s statement and my message could lead to confusion on what the Church teaches. Thank you for your advice. I appreciate your thoughts and will carefully keep in mind your concern that the bishop’s message about intrinsic evils be covered.
You are concerned that the bishop’s statements regarding intrinsic evils will be overlooked. But that has not been the case. Catholics are well-known for voting the single issue of pro-life. It’s an easy way to vote. One can say, “I know that I am safe in just voting for the pro-life candidate because that is what my church stresses.” Furthermore one canl fall into the trap that it is easier to oppose evil than to do good. Meanwhile—due in some part to these single-issue voters—our country goes easily to war, people all over the world suffer, our economy is seriously threatened, our environment is threatening, thousands of people are without health care. .
It is the ‘to do good’ side of the bishop’s message, which is lost, the side that calls us to Jesus’ second commandment to love our fellow man by caring about what happens to him. The bishop’s in their unanimous statement on forming consciences show concern that voters will fall prey to the safe out: They clearly state in the following reflections: 1. We are not single-issue voters: 2. The second temptation is to choose a pro-life candidate to protect innocent human life and to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity; 3. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights—to the basic good that every human person needs to live and thrive; and 4. It is not enough to oppose evil we must do good.
In no place in the document do the bishops say that you cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate. However, the bishops declare many warnings to vote carefully, such as you wish me to acknowledge in my articles. The bishops say specifically that we cannot vote for a candidate because of his pro-choice policy. But this leaves open the allowance that we can vote for him for other sufficiently grave reasons.
Regarding the side of the bishops message (and the message of Jesus too), to love our fellow man and to apply that message in the voting booth, --where does the laity hear and read that part of the bishop’s message? When I started to research my articles, I was astonished at the love that flows from the pens of the bishops, the Pope’s God is Love, the pontifical commission’s Compendium, and the Catechism. Those beautiful Christian words about loving our fellow man, which the bishops write are not often published for the laity. On the other hand, the general laity is singularly bombarded in the press and over the airwaves with the right to life issue.
Regarding your statement, “It matters not what the candidate’s position is on other issues, if he supports abortion. This candidate’s views on other issues are considered untrue and an illusion.” It seems to me that this statement does not reflect the bishop’s statements in this latest document to which we refer. I do not know the context. But it seems to imply no other issues are worth considering. Nor does the statement make any sense to me. Perhaps it refers specifically to the candidate’s spiritual being. But practically speaking, a person can be wrong about one thing but right about another. Because a candidate is pro-choice does not negate his/her views on world peace, hunger, the rights of workers, the improvement of the environment. Practically speaking, our country is run, issue-by-issue. We are bound by our Christian principle of love for our fellow man to do the best that we can for the welfare particularly the poor and vulnerable regardless of an immoral stance of a candidate. Voting for a pro-choice candidate is not the same as agreeing with his/her pro-choice stance. A vote for a pro-choice candidate is not the same as the immorality of an officeholder directly voting for an intrinsic evil. Voting for a pro-choice candidate does not say we support pro-choice—we have no way to choose the best from both candidates. The bishops call us to transform our party. How can we do that if Catholics are identified as single-issue voters and the party, consequently, dismisses our input? Might we not have a greater chance of making a difference on abortion issues within a party if we are not thus identified?
Nevertheless Warren, in the future, I will follow your concern that both sides of the bishop’s reflections are adequately stressed. I recognize that intrinsic evils should have more weight than other issues when it comes to the voting decision, and this is where the choice is not easy. Thank you for your kindness and your time by submitting your thoughts.
More John Paul II - The Dignity of America
This week marks the 20th anniversary of Pope John Paul II's pastoral visit to America in 1987. During his visit he travelled for 11 days in whirlwind stops to Detroit, New Orleans, San Antonio, Columbia, Los Angeles, Miami, Monterey, CA, San Francisco, and Phoenix.
John Paul II always spoke prophetically when he visited other countries and this trip was no exception. Of particular note is farewell address prior to his departure at the Detroit airport.
Some of the excerpts:
America, your deepest identity and truest character as a nation is revealed in the position you take towards the human person. The ultimate test of your greatness in the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenceless ones.
The best traditions of your land presume respect for those who cannot defend themselves. If you want equal justice for all, and true freedom and lasting peace, then, America, defend life! All the great causes that are yours today will have meaning only to the extent that you guarantee the right to life and protect the human person:
- feeding the poor and welcoming refugees;
- reinforcing the social fabric of this nation;
- promoting the true advancement of women;
- securing the rights of minorities;
- pursuing disarmament, while guaranteeing legitimate defence;
all this will succeed only if respect for life and its protection by the law is granted to every human being from conception until natural death.
Every human person - no matter how vulnerable or helpless, no matter how young or how old, no matter how healthy, handicapped or sick, no matter how useful or productive for society - is a being of inestimable worth created in the image and likeness of God. This is the dignity of America, the reason she exists, the condition for her survival-yes, the ultimate test of her greatness: to respect every human person, especially the weakest and most defenceless ones, those as yet unborn
The Archdiocese of Detroit has neatly put all of his talks while in Detroit in Podcast form on their web site and I encourage you to download them and listen as you can.
More John Paul II - The Dignity of America
This week marks the 20th anniversary of Pope John Paul II's pastoral visit to America in 1987. During his visit he travelled for 11 days in whirlwind stops to Detroit, New Orleans, San Antonio, Columbia, Los Angeles, Miami, Monterey, CA, San Francisco, and Phoenix.
John Paul II always spoke prophetically when he visited other countries and this trip was no exception. Of particular note is farewell address prior to his departure at the Detroit airport.
Some of the excerpts:
America, your deepest identity and truest character as a nation is revealed in the position you take towards the human person. The ultimate test of your greatness in the way you treat every human being, but especially the weakest and most defenceless ones.
The best traditions of your land presume respect for those who cannot defend themselves. If you want equal justice for all, and true freedom and lasting peace, then, America, defend life! All the great causes that are yours today will have meaning only to the extent that you guarantee the right to life and protect the human person:
- feeding the poor and welcoming refugees;
- reinforcing the social fabric of this nation;
- promoting the true advancement of women;
- securing the rights of minorities;
- pursuing disarmament, while guaranteeing legitimate defence;
all this will succeed only if respect for life and its protection by the law is granted to every human being from conception until natural death.
Every human person - no matter how vulnerable or helpless, no matter how young or how old, no matter how healthy, handicapped or sick, no matter how useful or productive for society - is a being of inestimable worth created in the image and likeness of God. This is the dignity of America, the reason she exists, the condition for her survival-yes, the ultimate test of her greatness: to respect every human person, especially the weakest and most defenceless ones, those as yet unborn
The Archdiocese of Detroit has neatly put all of his talks while in Detroit in Podcast form on their web site and I encourage you to download them and listen as you can.
Dear Warren,
Thank you for the post with the words of John Paul II and his call to America to defend life, particularly for the unborn.
The information about the podcasts available from The Archdiocese of Detroit is appreciated.
Susan
Susan,
I am sorry to be so unclear but again you miss my point.
I am not concerned with your political point of view or the content of your writing. In fact, I do not consider myself a very political man. But I am a Catholic and what does concern me is that a message was inserted into my parish bulletin that was factually deficient. It contained only part of what the Bishops’ letter stated and could easily lead to confusion on Church teaching.
Having said that, I must say that I find your latest post rather factually challenged, and feel that each statement deserves a response.
1. I am pro-choice. I assume from you writings that you are pro-choice. Most Americans are pro-choice. I have read on freedom that it is having the choice to do the right thing. A person that supports the killing of unborn children may or may not be pro-choice, but they are definitely pro-abortion.
2. As for my concern that the Bishops’ statements regarding intrinsic evils were being overlooked, in my Church bulletin they most definitely were. That is my point. It was not stated there. Also, Catholics are not single-issue-voters. At least I can say that I am Catholic and I am not. I assume that you are Catholic and you are not. The Church teaches us not to be. A person who says that they will not support a candidate that is pro-abortion is no more likely to be a single-issue-voter than one who says they will only support a pro-abortion candidate. Also, there are over thirty million Catholic voters in this country. I think it is fair to say that if Catholics were single-issue-voters we would not be having this discussion.
3. I won’t argue that single-issue-voters are in some part responsible the state of our country. Again though, this is only partial truth. So are men and women. So are blacks and whites. So are republicans and democrats. So is the fact that the sun rises in the east. So I must say that I believe your view on single-issue-voters to be perception and not fact.
4. Regarding the ‘to do good’ side of the Bishops’ message I must ask, “where was this lost?” I thought you stated that very well. Once again, I totally agree with every part of the Bishops’ letter that was stated. The problem is that by omitting part of the writing, it takes on a very different meaning. I can compare it to taking only part of Holy Scripture, as many of our protestant brethren do, to form an opinion that is not according to Church teaching. It is untrue that because I say I must not support a pro-abortion candidate that I have no concern for anything else that happens in the world. Again, this is an inaccurate perception.
5. You are correct that nowhere in the Bishops’ letter do they state that you can not vote for a pro-abortion candidate. But they do say that abortion is an intrinsic evil that must never be supported. This is only my personal opinion but, I think that taking that to mean it is ok , or even right to support said candidate is a bit of a stretch. Also, Anthony Cardinal Beuilacqua, in a The Rock Magazine interview, gave the following answer when asked what, beyond praying, Catholics should be doing to end abortion: “Well, I’d say increase your prayer life against abortion. In addition, I think Catholics should become actively and personally involved in the fight against abortion, primarily to eliminate its legalization. The Bishops of the United States have said that it is unconscionable that any Catholic would knowingly vote for a pro-abortion candidate (unless the alternative is a candidate who is even more vigorously anti-life).” Again I say that we must look at the full truth.
6. As for the message of love our fellow man, I still agree that you stated it very well. But again, as with any truth, it does no good if it is not the full truth. I can not speak of the charity of the hearts of other Catholics who say that they will not support a pro-abortion candidate. But I can say that I do have enough charity of heart to say that I will not question yours.
7. Your statement that the general laity is singularly bombarded in the press and over the airwaves with the right to life issue is takes some thought. By singularly do you mean once (please excuse the sarcasm)? Since the Church considers this issue to be so important I would imagine that Church leaders would consider being bombarded a good thing. I consider myself a pretty good follower of both print and air media. I must humbly ask you identify this as merely your perception or support it with statistics. Maybe if pro-life issues could get any positive press, our candidates opinions might be changed.
8. I apologize for the confusion with my next statement. You are correct that it did not come from the Bishops. As my first post stated it comes from John Paul II. Allow me to state it again: “Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination”.(Christifideles Laici, 1988). I do not think that, as you say “it seems to imply no other issues are worth considering. It does , I submit, pretty clearly state that a pro-abortion candidate’s position on these issues is not because they are not true. So, practically speaking, a pro-abortion candidate cannot be right on other views.
9. As you state, we are bound to do the best that we can for the welfare particularly of the poor and vulnerable regardless of the immoral stance of a candidate. If you truly mean that you must not even consider the candidate who supports the killing of the unborn, the poorest and most vulnerable members of our society.
10. Voting for a pro-abortion candidate may not say that you are pro-abortion, but it does say that you are going to do you part to allow that candidate to promote their pro-abortion agenda.
11. Yes, the Bishops call us to transform our party. I again am not a real political person and am not active in any party politics. Also, once again I say that you are statistically incorrect about Catholics being single-issue-voters. Maybe that is part of the transformation problem. I will say, as an observation, that since this transformation has not taken place in over forty years and fifty million lives your current tactic is not working. I think if Catholics would in unity say “we are leaving and we will be back when you defend all life, then, in a very short period both parties would have only pro-life candidates and we could consider all of the views of all of the candidates on their merits.
12. I am glad that you plan to attempt to include all of the truth in the future. However, there have been a few hundred people in our parish that have not been shown that full truth. My concern is what we should do to rectify that.
13. To quote a country song that I believe was sung by Conway Twitty: P. S. I LOVE YOU!
Post a Comment