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
No comments:
Post a Comment