Dear George,
Thank you for your very thoughtful reply.
We are so in agreement on most of what you have said. However, we depart on where the emphasis of our Christianity should be placed. Your statement that “intrinsic evils outweigh all other issues when it comes to electing a candidate” is a good place to start and truly does seem to qualify as our main difference.
Why would you choose intrinsic evils as the single element for determination of a candidate when there are many other issues?
For example, abortion is an intrinsic evil but that does not say that it is the single element to be considered in a consistent ethic of life? The second Vatican Council in its “Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World” (1964) included abortion not as a single issue but as the third item in a list of 16 examples of violence against human life. Again, in accord with Vatican II the U.S. bishops inaugurated their Respect Life program the year before Roe v. Wade. They invited Catholics and others to focus on the “sanctity of life and the many threats to life in the modern world, including violence, hunger and poverty.
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..
I agree poverty is not evil. It is not the state of poverty that is evil; it is the failure of Christians to care that is evil––given Christ’s clear directive for us to care.
I’ve read and reread your answer about being 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. I am not convinced. First they say a conscientious voter faces a dilemma. To me, their meaning of a conscientious voter is one who is working to resolve his own personal conscience. Those that agree with those bishops that the single issue of intrinsic evils has no other issue to influence their vote “may” not vote or “may” choose between the two. But those that form their conscience as I do will look more at other parts of the document that insist we must look at more than one issue when we vote.
Your reading of this passage and my reading differ. To me, if the bishops wish to forbid us from voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil if another candidate who does not support an intrinsic evil is also running, the bishops would have said—you must not vote for such a candidate rather than you “may” and you “may.”
Exactly what do the bishops advise regarding a vote for a candidate whose policy supports an intrinsic evil (intrinsic evil as defined by our church)? Reading their document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship1 helps us understand the principles that support the possibility of voting for such a candidate. Consider the following guidance from their document;
1. Catholics are not single-issue voters.
2. Nowhere in their document do the bishops say a vote for, for example, a pro-choice candidate must always be rejected and opposed.
3. It is important to note the exact words of the bishops when they state a candidate’s issue “may” (and not “must”) cause you not to vote for the candidate. Or 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.”
4. When voting for a candidate who holds an intrinsic evil among many issues, one does not commit a direct act of voting for that intrinsic evil (voting does not support or condone a candidate’s view on any single specific issue).
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. It is not enough to oppose evil, we must do good. (What I think the bishops mean by this statement is that some preach and pray, for example, against abortion and fail to fulfill with the same determination Jesus’ second commandment to love and care for our fellow man.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
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
Post a Comment