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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Dear Susan,
I must apologize for being so long in posting a response. I just recently stumbled across my bookmark to your blog again and saw, for the first time, your response to my post.
Thanks for taking time to share your thoughts. Of course, the election is over now, but this conversation can continue despite that.
I would first like to address your chosen title for this post, specifically the phrase "pro-choice," along with a paragraph in your post that says, among other things, "[A]lmost no candidate is actually pro-abortion. Most do not personally believe that abortion is moral but believe that the woman should have that choice."
The phrase "pro-choice" connotes a belief in the right to choose, period. However, "pro-choice" candidates are not, in fact, pro-choice. They would not allow me to choose to kill someone. Hence, they think certain choices are wrong. We must then ask what they think we should have a right to choose. The answer is, of course, abortion. So, whether or not they would personally procure, permit, or encourage an abortion for themselves or a family member is beside the point. If they deny the passage of laws restricting or outlawing abortion, then they must be said to be pro-abortion. They may talk as if it is an ugly thing, but they still think it is a necessary thing, or they would eliminate it. "Pro-abortion" is an intellectually honest label for such individuals. "Pro-choice" is not. It is merely a euphemism – a word or phrase invented to hide a taboo reality.
Now, I would like to travel through your post in order, addressing things as I see them.
You say that "love of our fellow man is our most all-encompassing, fundamental, moral challenge..." I agree completely and would simply like to point out that "our fellow man" includes unborn children.
In the second paragraph, you take my words out of context. You make it sound as if I interpret the bishops' document as categorically forbidding voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil. A careful reading of my entire post will show that I believe it is illicit to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil if there is another candidate who does not support an intrinsic evil. In such a case, we would not necessarily be bound to vote for the second candidate, but we would be bound not to vote for the first candidate. I think you will find that the bishops' document agrees with this interpretation.
You say that refusing to consider a candidate because they support an intrinsic evil would "set serious limits on our ability to vote for the best candidates to carry out love for humanity." Are not such limits good? Can they ever really limit our ability to vote for the best candidates? Would you vote for Hitler if he were to run for president? Would you vote for a candidate that wanted to legalize slavery? I would hope that both you and I would refuse to consider such candidates. Hitler's eugenics and slavery are both intrinsic evils. Abortion is in this same category. It is the willful slaughter of innocent human life and is directly analogous to Hitler's willful slaughter of innocent human life. It is not an accident that the pro-life movement has dubbed it "the abortion holocaust." Do you not think that a candidate that supports an intrinsic evil such as slavery, eugenics or abortion has a serious moral character flaw? It shouldn't matter, in practical terms, whether such things are already legal. If Abraham Lincoln hadn't been elected while slavery was yet legal, he wouldn't have done what he did. If we don't elect pro-life candidates to office, we are dooming our country to continue under the oppression that is abortion. Even if we don't believe the pro-life candidate will be willing or able to eliminate abortion, would it not be prudent to not vote for the pro-abortion candidate? After all, the pro-life candidate may surprise us. If I am not mistaken, it was not a part of Lincoln's platform to end slavery; yet, while in office, he did just that.
You say that "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." Yes, we may, with a sufficiently grave reason, vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil such as abortion. But the bishop's document is clear that a sufficiently grave reason is only present if all candidates support some form of intrinsic evil. The reasons you site are not sufficiently grave. Hunger is not an intrinsic evil. It may be voluntarily chosen and can even be offered up in an efficacious way. It is also a sad reality that many do not choose, and in such a case it is evil, but not an intrinsic evil. Nor is sickness an intrinsic evil; nor is pollution. If it were, we wouldn't be able to drive cars or even light a campfire. That is the nature of an intrinsically evil act -- it cannot be done under any circumstance.
Furthermore, while involuntary hunger and sickness are deplorable human conditions, can they really be legitimately compared with murder? Can anyone honestly maintain that the support of murder -- which is the reality of abortion -- could be offset by good economic, social and environmental policies?
You are correct that supporting a candidate despite their stance on abortion would not necessarily be formal cooperation with evil and could be justified for sufficiently grave reasons. But as discussed above, those reasons are not "starving, sick and lost human beings."
Further down, you correctly point out that the bishops say that "...a candidate's position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil...may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate…" (42). You emphasize that "may" is important. Indeed, it is. "[S]erious moral issues" may unfortunately (but legitimately) lead us to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil. "A world crying for justice" is not a concrete reason and cannot be considered on a practical level as a grave reason.
Later in your post, whether you mean to or not, you convey a very defeatist attitude regarding abortion laws. "Roe v. Wade has been long established as law and has withstood the challenges of arguments...." That may be the case, but the law is intrinsically evil and unjust. We must continue to fight against it. Voting for a pro-abortion candidate does nothing to further this fight and instead contributes to a deeper entrenchment of the abortion mentality in our country.
It sounds as if you weigh Christ's command to love our neighbor against the hope that abortion will be outlawed. You imply that hope is dim that abortion laws will be reversed, so we should abandon that cause if it means that we'll be able to better love our neighbor. However, these two things do not belong on opposite sides of the balance. Can we really claim to love our neighbor if we permit the slaughter of innocent children -- the least of our neighbors, they who will be greatest in the Kingdom of God? In abandoning hope that abortion laws can be changed, we are really abandoning the root of Christ's command to love our neighbor -- the love of life itself. Can a candidate who supports murder really be considered a better "lover of neighbor" than a candidate who has poor economic, social or political policies, but spurns such murder?
You rightly claim that a pro-abortion candidate may be concerned with reducing the number of abortions. That is a practical consideration, but again, one must first have a grave reason for even considering a pro-abortion candidate in the first place. Keeping abortion legal is not the most effective way to reduce abortion. Furthermore, we have but to look at the fruits of this past election. As President, Barack Obama has already reversed the Mexico City Policy which forbade federal funding of abortion in other countries. This doesn't sound like he wants to reduce abortion. It maddens me to think that my tax dollars may be going to support abortion in other countries. Haven't we messed our own country up enough? Now we are exporting our gross immorality? And on my dollar?
President Barack Obama has also promised Planned Parenthood that one of the first things he would do as president would be to sign FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) into law. FOCA removes all state and local restrictions on abortion and effectively creates abortion-on-demand -- no parental consent necessary, no factual information required to be provided before abortions are performed, no ultrasounds, nothing that might inform a woman that she has a human life within her. With the election of this pro-abortion candidate, we are already sliding backward on the protection of unborn life.
President George W. Bush may not have done a lot to eliminate the abortion laws, but at least he didn't further them. Not only that, he put the Mexico City Policy back in place after President Clinton had reversed it. He also refused to sign into law a gravely immoral bill, which would have given federal funding to embryonic stem cell research, despite it having passed both the House and the Senate. Whatever one may say about his foreign and domestic policies, he has been consistently pro-life in his actions.
An additional fact bears mentioning. In the weeks prior to the election, many bishops -- I heard numbers between 80 and 100+ -- came out with strong statements which said, in essence, you may not vote for pro-abortion candidates in this presidential election. The meaning and intent of their statements was clear. Some of them even named Barack Obama, despite the danger of losing tax exemption for their dioceses. I believe the Magisterium has spoken loudly on this matter.
In closing, Susan, I commend your love for the poor, the down-trodden and your concern for our environment. I share those concerns. I and my family try not to be one of those who "preach and pray against abortion and fail to fulfill...Jesus' second commandment to love...our fellow man." We believe that inasmuch as possible, all good must be sought. But when one candidate supports an intrinsic evil and the other supports questionable environmental policies, we will vote against the first candidate every time. It must be noted that I (and I believe the bishops with me) do not try to tell anyone for whom to vote, only for whom not to vote.
God bless,
George
P.S. Sometimes one doesn't truly appreciate the horror of abortion until one is exposed to photos of it's violence. WARNING: the following link contains graphic images of aborted children. I encourage everyone who has the stomach to look and see what is carefully hidden from the public eye by the abortion industry.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/weeks2.html
Dear George, It was truly good to hear from you.
Whenever I find that there is a basic disagreement with someone, I try to identify the basic premise we both have that causes the disagreement.
It appears to me that--for you--there is one demanding issue, the right to life of the unborn. I believe—for you--that issue outweighs all other issues when it comes to electing a candidate.
Have I correctly stated your position?
For me—even though the right to life is an intrinsic evil that requires greater emphasis and must always be opposed--it does not unequivocally determine my vote.
(I understand the bishop’s great emphasis on the moral issue of stopping abortions when so many do not even consider the unborn as human beings with a soul. What a fight has to be mounted to overcome such beliefs.)
Regarding your blog, I wondered about this statement of yours.
In the second paragraph, you take my words out of context. You make it sound as if I interpret the bishops' document as categorically forbidding voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil. A careful reading of my entire post will show that I believe it is illicit to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil if there is another candidate who does not support an intrinsic evil. In such a case, we would not necessarily be bound to vote for the second candidate, but we would be bound not to vote for the first candidate. I think you will find that the bishops' document agrees with this interpretation.
I’ve read and reread the bishop’s statement. I do not find where the bishops say “we would be bound not to vote for the first candidate.”
Regarding your statement that the magesterium has spoken, I refer you to paragraph 33 in their document. I hope you are not suggesting it is an infallible magesterium speaking.
My thinking is that the bishops have named several specific evils as intrinsic evils to call our attention to them. However, that does not imply that these named issues are the only intrinsic evils. To me the greater intrinsic evil is poverty which causes so many deaths, suffering, and abortions--thoughout the world. Where I see a candidate able to make a difference about such suffering, these considerations influence my vote. For example, Richard Stearns writes about Rakai, Uganda where exists an “AIDS pandemic. He looks at an orphan boy at 13 raising his brothers.
Twelve million orphans, and no one noticed? But what sickened me most was this question: Where was the church? Indeed, where were the followers of Jesus Christ in the midst of perhaps the greatest humanitarian crises of our time? Surely the church should have been caring for these “orphans and widows in their distress”. Shouldn’t the pulpits across America have flamed with exhortations to rush to the front lines of compassion? Shouldn’t they be flamed with exhortations to rush to the front lines of compassion? Shouldn’t they be flaming today? Shouldn’t churches be reaching out to care for children in such desperate need? How could the great tragedy of these orphans get drowned out by choruses of praise music in hundreds of thousands of churches across our country? Sitting in a hut in Rakai, I remember thinking, How have we missed it so tragically, when even rock stars and Hollywood actors seem to understand? Ten year later I know. Something fundamental has been missing in our understanding of the gospel
The word gospel literally means “good new.” Jesus declared that he had come to “preach good news to the poor”. But what good news, what gospel did the church have for Richard and his brothers in Rakai? What “good news” have God’s people brought to the world’s three billion poor? What “gospel has Africans 2 million AIDS orphans see? And here’s a question for you: What gospel have most of us embraced in the 21st century?
A gospel with a hole in it.
George, I do not see either of us moving from our basic premise as stated at the beginning of this statement. Do you?
Dear Susan,
Your statement of my basic premise is not quite accurate. The demanding issue is not the right to life; it is intrinsic evils. So, it would better be stated as follows: intrinsic evils outweigh all other issues when it comes to electing a candidate.
Part of the difficulty in our conversation seems to arise from differing definitions of "intrinsic evil." You think of and use "intrinsic evil" more flexibly than I do. "Intrinsically evil" is a technical, theological term. It has a precise definition.
Here is what John Paul II says in his encyclical entitled "The Splendor of Truth": "Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature 'incapable of being ordered' to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed 'intrinsically evil...' They are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances" (VS no. 80, emphasis in original).
It is not a matter of opinion whether something is or is not an intrinsic evil. It is a matter of fact. You state that, for you, the greatest intrinsic evil is poverty; yet poverty is not an intrinsic evil. I do not say this as a statement of opinion. It is a fact. Poverty can be voluntarily chosen, as is demonstrated by the traditional vows that consecrated religious take. Furthermore, poverty does not, and cannot rob us of the ultimate good: heaven.
In contrast, abortion is always and everywhere wrong. It is a gross violation of human dignity in all instances. There is never a case where abortion is morally permissible. It is an intrinsic evil. It infinitely outweighs poverty in the spectrum of issues. I do not say "infinitely" in exaggeration. I say it with great gravity.
You ask how I determined from the bishops' document that we are morally bound not to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil if another viable candidate who does not support an intrinsic evil is also running. The bishops say, "...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). You have rightly pointed out that "may" is an important word in this statement, but the bishops' document previously outlined the exception that is the reason it did not say "must" instead of "may." Here is what we find earlier in the document: "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).
It seems clear that the only reason you may vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil is if all candidates support an intrinsic evil. And even then, the bishops' advise great caution for it is not a decision to be made lightly.
You question my statement regarding the magisterium. I do not mean the infallible Magisterium of the Catholic church, but I do mean that a chorus of bishops have spoken together. That carries great weight. I assume when you refer me to no. 33 in the bishops' document, that you refer specifically to the statement, "The judgments and recommendations that we make as bishops on specific issues do not carry the same moral authority as statements of universal moral teachings." In response, I would ask to what specific issues they refer. I would argue that they mean specific political issues. Abortion is a moral issue before it is a political issue. Do the bishops not have a right and indeed a duty to teach us with regard to faith and morals? When a bishop says that a candidate's support for abortion disqualifies him from consideration, the bishop is making a moral judgment, not a political judgment. And he has every right to. We as the flock should be prepared to accept his moral judgments with the assent of faith.
The difference between abortion and poverty in this past election can be further seen when we look at how the two major party candidates differed on these two issues. Obama was clearly pro-abortion and clearly supporting an intrinsic evil. McCain was clearly anti-abortion. They were polar opposites. However, on the topic of poverty, I imagine at the surface level if you asked both candidates what they thought of poverty, they would both say it must be alleviated. They would differ in their approaches, but such disagreement is legitimate as stated in the bishops' document: "Catholics may choose different ways to respond to compelling social problems..." (no. 20). So, if one feels that Obama has a better plan to combat poverty, one must nevertheless oppose his candidacy, primarily because abortion is an intrinsic evil, but secondarily because McCain's plan to combat poverty, while not as savory, is not inherently evil. Indeed, it is possible that his plan is the better plan after all, and we are merely mistaken.
Your passage about Rakai is impassioned. I share the passion that Richard Stearns conveys. I weep with you at the profound poverty and disease that exists in the world. I think though that the passage conveys the answer to the problem in as much as the problem can be answered. Stearns does not call for government to step in. He is crying out for help from the Church. The Church is the vehicle through which poverty may be addressed most effectively. Not that government does not have a role, but the principle of subsidiarity, which the Church teaches, says that it is not ultimately government that will fix poverty. Indeed, not even the Church will do that. Not in this lifetime. Jesus said the poor would always be with us. But the Church does say that the local faithful are the best suited to be Christ to the poor. Obama can't effect a conversion of heart in the world's people. Neither can McCain. That is for Christ to do and we his Body.
As you rightly state, Jesus calls us to preach good news to the poor. He calls us individually, not government. It is not the job of government to preach the gospel. Remember that the gospel is a message. The poor will not be any less poor materially after having received the gospel, but what they lack in possessions, they make up for in faith -- the pearl of great price. Government can't deliver the pearl of great price. That's our job. Yes, we should be materially generous as well and in this respect the government can help, but the level of government involvement and its strategies are legitimately debatable. Abortion is not debatable. Nor is infanticide. Nor is embryonic stem cell research. Nor is gay marriage. Nor are a host of other intrinsic evils.
Thanks again for our continuing conversation. It has prompted me to think more deeply about these issues. I hope it has done the same for you.
God bless,
George
Post a Comment