Jesus taught us that love of our fellow man is our most all-encompassing, fundamental, moral challenge, as is his commandment to love the Lord Our God. Therefore, when we select a candidate, that is, if we are to love our fellow man, we must ask, “Will this person best work for the common good?”
But many individuals believe as a parishioner, George, concludes in this blog, “if a candidate supports an intrinsic evil, he/she is disqualified and may not be voted for.” This conclusion would set serious limits on our ability to vote for the best candidates to carry out love for humanity.
With reference to the bishops document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States we find we may disagree with George’s conclusion; we may decide with sufficiently grave reasons that we can vote for a candidate even though he is pro-choice––grave reasons being a candidate we believe can best work for the billions of starving, sick, and lost human beings living in a world with ever greater pollution.
We say to George, we can vote for a candidate who best supports our belief to care for our fellow humans even though he/she is pro-choice. The moral reasoning that allows us to vote for such a candidate lies in the theological understanding of an indirect versus a direct act––a direct act being formal cooperation. When voting for a candidate who happens to have a position among many positions that is pro-choice, one does not perform a direct act such as, for example, an office holder who votes for a program or law, which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. (30) His act would be a direct act. The bishops point to the concept of a direct act or formal cooperation when they say, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. (Italics mine) Thus if the voter’s “intent” is to “support” the pro-choice position, Catholics would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil” ––otherwise not. (34)
To discuss further how George arrived at a different conclusion, let us look at examples he provided in his argument. He quotes the bishops, “[Intrinsic evils} must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.” (22) When he quotes this phrase, is he reading into their statement that “voting” is a form of direct support for abortion and that the vote is of such impact that abortion is condoned? On the contrary and nowhere in their document do the bishops say that voting for a pro-choice candidate must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned. Voting does not directly support any single issue of a candidate.
Again he quotes the bishops, “Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.” (42) The word “may” in their statement is essential. Other serious moral issues, such as a world crying for justice, may supersede the candidate’s position involving an intrinsic evil.
One may work with maximum determination for the right to life but believe voting for a candidate due to serious moral obligations may not be the time. Granted, a candidate’s position on intrinsic evils is absolutely not one issue among many and must be included in forming ones conscience. Not necessarily thinking of the huge number of abortions, how easy it would be to avert ones eyes. Thus it is understandable the bishops use every persuasive word they can to make sure there may be no doubt about the magnitude of the evil of abortion.
There are many other considerations, which go into the forming of conscience that are full-page discussions in themselves. For example, the magnitude of Christ’s demand that we care for and love all our fellow human beings against how much can actually or has actually been accomplished to overcome Roe v. Wade no matter how many pro-life candidates are elected for that reason alone. Roe v. Wade has been long established as law and has withstood the challenges of arguments against the criterion that established the law.
Furthermore, almost no candidate is actually pro-abortion. Most do not personally believe that abortion is moral but believe that the woman should have that choice. So such a candidate may be very open to reducing abortions by other means actually more effective than focusing just on the law. For example, supporting women to have their children can effectively reduce abortions and is a positive approach mirroring Christ’s love.
Finally, study what the bishops say supporting the idea that one can vote for a candidate, who among other issues, believes in for example, pro-choice:
1. The bishops say, Catholics are not single-issue voters (though a candidates position involving an intrinsic evil… may lead a voter to disqualify a candidate.) (42)
2. They say, the second temptation is to choose a pro-life candidate (if that were available) to protect innocent human life and to dismiss other serious threats to human life and dignity. (29)
3. They 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.
4. They say, it is not enough to oppose evil, we must do good. (What I think the bishops mean by this statement is that lots of people preach and pray against abortion and fail to fulfill with the same determination Jesus’ second commandment to love and care for our fellow man.
5. They say, “The consistent ethic of life provides a moral framework…and rightly understood, neither treats all issues as morally equivalent nor reduces Catholic teaching to one or two issues.”(40)
6. They say, “ In this statement, we bishops do not intend to tell Catholics for whom or against whom to vote.”
You are encouraged to join the discussion.
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship is available online at http://www.usccb.org/bishops/FCStatement.pdf
Susan
Thursday, August 7, 2008
George's Letter
(Below is George's reply to articles and comments on this blog. I have deleted his blog from the Comments after the Energy article and posted it here to make it more accessible. To read the full discussion go to April, scroll down to energy and click on comments.)
Dear Susan,
I would like to second Warren's concerns. I originally prepared the response below off-line, so it will not directly address the conversation above, but I think you will find similar themes.---------------I think your concern for social justice is commendable. I read your bulletin insert at St. Patrick Church discussing care for the environment. I agree that the issues you mention are important to be aware of and to be addressing as concerned Catholics. I must, however, vigorously object to your selection of quotations from the bishops' document on voting (USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship : A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States [Nov. 14, 2007]). You do not say it yourself, but your selection implies that when we are considering who to vote for in the upcoming presidential election, we should consider their stance on the intrinsic evil of abortion as one issue among many to be considered.Early on, the bishops' document places central concern on the dignity of the human person: “At the center of these truths is respect for the dignity of every person. This is the core of Catholic moral and social teaching” (FC no. 10). When discussing “the dignity of every person,” we must include the right to life, but, as you rightly perceive, our discussion must also include issues such as health care, the war in Iraq, and even energy consumption; but these latter are to be considered lesser moral concerns when compared to intrinsic evils such as abortion and euthanasia. The document makes a clear distinction between intrinsic evils which violate the right to life, and lesser evils. With regard to lesser evils, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has said, “there may be legitimate diversity of opinion.” The bishops' document puts it this way: “The moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors—basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education, and meaningful work—is universally binding on our consciences and may be legitimately fulfilled by a variety of means” (FC no. 25). In sharp contrast to this flexibility, the bishops' document states, “[Intrinsic evils] must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned” (FC no. 22; emphasis added). Furthermore, speaking of the temptations in public life to distort the import of life issues, the bishop's document declares, “The first [temptation] is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed” (FC no. 28).There is something fundamental about the right to life. Without it, we need not concern ourselves with a discussion regarding other rights. If there is no right to life, then how can we begin to talk about freedom of speech, or freedom of religion; there's no one to do the speaking or the worshiping. Essentially, we need to get the foundation put right before we can start appropriately addressing the needs of the poor. “A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed” (FC no. 22). In a similar vein of argument, the document quotes from John Paul II's apostolic exhortation, Christifideles Laici: “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” (CL, no. 38; quoted in FC no. 26; emphasis added).With regard to voting, consider a scenario I once heard. If a presidential candidate had a position that involved re-instituting slavery, I would hope that, no matter how good we felt his other policies were, we would quickly and easily conclude that he was not fit for office. We should think of abortion, and all life issues, analogously.When it comes down to voting, the lines are not always so easily drawn. As quoted in your article, the bishops' document states, “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support” (FC no. 42). I will now include the sentence that follows that in the document, which was left out of your bulletin article: “Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support” (FC no. 42; emphasis added). As far as I am aware, right now, all three presidential hopefuls (democrat and republican) are in favor of some form of intrinsic evil. Two favor abortion, and the third favors embryonic stem cell research. The bishops' document states, “[E]xercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection” (FC no. 31; emphasis added). That seems to outright disqualify all of the major-party candidates. For further guidance, the document offers the following: “When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. 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” (FC no 36).In light of these grave issues, I would encourage the voter to be very careful and sure about whom they are choosing. Their choice should center first and foremost on the candidates' stances on intrinsic evils. After having weighed such intrinsic evils, the voter may then turn to the candidates' stances on “energy, health care, the war in Iraq and other compelling issues.”You mentioned the Iraq war as a further consideration. I would like to examine that briefly:• There are 4,000+ abortions performed in the United States daily, totaling more than 1,460,000 each year, and 49,000,000+ since it was legalized.• In Iraq, the highest estimates indicate a total of 1,200,000+ violent deaths -- which likely includes violence among Iraqis since the beginning of US engagement. 4,083 of those are US soldiers.Abortion is an intrinsic evil. War is not. There is such a thing as a just war (in theory). This particular war may or may not be just; however, there are several parts to just war doctrine. Not only must we consider the reasons for engaging, but we must also consider what to do once we are in there. A huge part of just war theory is restoring peace. This is part of where "legitimate disagreement" may be had regarding our approach to restoring peace, but there is no "legitimate disagreement" regarding abortion -- it is always wrong.As I see it, here is the procedure that is implicitly recommended in the document. This is my interpretation, so it quite likely needs modifications. If a candidate supports an intrinsic evil, s/he is disqualified and may not be voted for. If, after this process, you have eliminated all candidates, you have two choices: you may take the extraordinary step of not voting; or you may start again by considering the likelihood that a particular candidate will make the intrinsic evil worse by pushing for new laws, etc. If there are candidates that have stated that they will actively pursue such new laws and those laws are likely to pass, then they should be disqualified in this second round as well. If you have then disqualified all of the candidates again, you may look at those issues of lesser moral weight such as the war and health care. If there is one candidate that has no intrinsic evil marks against him, but his position on other issues is abominable in the voter's estimation, that does not excuse the voter and allow him/her to then consider another pro-abortion (for example) candidate, because the issues are not equivalent. For example, a bad health care plan is not equivalent to supporting abortion. A bad health care plan robs from human dignity, but human life is prior to human dignity as John Paul II has pointed out.
God bless,
George
Dear Susan,
I would like to second Warren's concerns. I originally prepared the response below off-line, so it will not directly address the conversation above, but I think you will find similar themes.---------------I think your concern for social justice is commendable. I read your bulletin insert at St. Patrick Church discussing care for the environment. I agree that the issues you mention are important to be aware of and to be addressing as concerned Catholics. I must, however, vigorously object to your selection of quotations from the bishops' document on voting (USCCB, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship : A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States [Nov. 14, 2007]). You do not say it yourself, but your selection implies that when we are considering who to vote for in the upcoming presidential election, we should consider their stance on the intrinsic evil of abortion as one issue among many to be considered.Early on, the bishops' document places central concern on the dignity of the human person: “At the center of these truths is respect for the dignity of every person. This is the core of Catholic moral and social teaching” (FC no. 10). When discussing “the dignity of every person,” we must include the right to life, but, as you rightly perceive, our discussion must also include issues such as health care, the war in Iraq, and even energy consumption; but these latter are to be considered lesser moral concerns when compared to intrinsic evils such as abortion and euthanasia. The document makes a clear distinction between intrinsic evils which violate the right to life, and lesser evils. With regard to lesser evils, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger has said, “there may be legitimate diversity of opinion.” The bishops' document puts it this way: “The moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors—basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education, and meaningful work—is universally binding on our consciences and may be legitimately fulfilled by a variety of means” (FC no. 25). In sharp contrast to this flexibility, the bishops' document states, “[Intrinsic evils] must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned” (FC no. 22; emphasis added). Furthermore, speaking of the temptations in public life to distort the import of life issues, the bishop's document declares, “The first [temptation] is a moral equivalence that makes no ethical distinctions between different kinds of issues involving human life and dignity. The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many. It must always be opposed” (FC no. 28).There is something fundamental about the right to life. Without it, we need not concern ourselves with a discussion regarding other rights. If there is no right to life, then how can we begin to talk about freedom of speech, or freedom of religion; there's no one to do the speaking or the worshiping. Essentially, we need to get the foundation put right before we can start appropriately addressing the needs of the poor. “A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed” (FC no. 22). In a similar vein of argument, the document quotes from John Paul II's apostolic exhortation, Christifideles Laici: “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” (CL, no. 38; quoted in FC no. 26; emphasis added).With regard to voting, consider a scenario I once heard. If a presidential candidate had a position that involved re-instituting slavery, I would hope that, no matter how good we felt his other policies were, we would quickly and easily conclude that he was not fit for office. We should think of abortion, and all life issues, analogously.When it comes down to voting, the lines are not always so easily drawn. As quoted in your article, the bishops' document states, “As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. A candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support” (FC no. 42). I will now include the sentence that follows that in the document, which was left out of your bulletin article: “Yet a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support” (FC no. 42; emphasis added). As far as I am aware, right now, all three presidential hopefuls (democrat and republican) are in favor of some form of intrinsic evil. Two favor abortion, and the third favors embryonic stem cell research. The bishops' document states, “[E]xercise of conscience begins with outright opposition to laws and other policies that violate human life or weaken its protection” (FC no. 31; emphasis added). That seems to outright disqualify all of the major-party candidates. For further guidance, the document offers the following: “When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. 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” (FC no 36).In light of these grave issues, I would encourage the voter to be very careful and sure about whom they are choosing. Their choice should center first and foremost on the candidates' stances on intrinsic evils. After having weighed such intrinsic evils, the voter may then turn to the candidates' stances on “energy, health care, the war in Iraq and other compelling issues.”You mentioned the Iraq war as a further consideration. I would like to examine that briefly:• There are 4,000+ abortions performed in the United States daily, totaling more than 1,460,000 each year, and 49,000,000+ since it was legalized.• In Iraq, the highest estimates indicate a total of 1,200,000+ violent deaths -- which likely includes violence among Iraqis since the beginning of US engagement. 4,083 of those are US soldiers.Abortion is an intrinsic evil. War is not. There is such a thing as a just war (in theory). This particular war may or may not be just; however, there are several parts to just war doctrine. Not only must we consider the reasons for engaging, but we must also consider what to do once we are in there. A huge part of just war theory is restoring peace. This is part of where "legitimate disagreement" may be had regarding our approach to restoring peace, but there is no "legitimate disagreement" regarding abortion -- it is always wrong.As I see it, here is the procedure that is implicitly recommended in the document. This is my interpretation, so it quite likely needs modifications. If a candidate supports an intrinsic evil, s/he is disqualified and may not be voted for. If, after this process, you have eliminated all candidates, you have two choices: you may take the extraordinary step of not voting; or you may start again by considering the likelihood that a particular candidate will make the intrinsic evil worse by pushing for new laws, etc. If there are candidates that have stated that they will actively pursue such new laws and those laws are likely to pass, then they should be disqualified in this second round as well. If you have then disqualified all of the candidates again, you may look at those issues of lesser moral weight such as the war and health care. If there is one candidate that has no intrinsic evil marks against him, but his position on other issues is abominable in the voter's estimation, that does not excuse the voter and allow him/her to then consider another pro-abortion (for example) candidate, because the issues are not equivalent. For example, a bad health care plan is not equivalent to supporting abortion. A bad health care plan robs from human dignity, but human life is prior to human dignity as John Paul II has pointed out.
God bless,
George
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)