Dear George,
This is the third of my posts since you last sent your very thoughtful post.
I just mention this so you will know to look to the past two posts, also.
I feel fortunate that you are willing to have these discussions. Thank you.
We have had many discussions, but I don’t think you have responded to the following cautions the bishops have made in their document on voting––the document which we use for the resource for this discussion..
1. Catholics are not single-issue voters.
2. 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.
3. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights––to basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive.
4. It is not enough to oppose evil, we must do good.
I look forward to your response.
Susan
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Dear Susan,
Here are my responses to the quotes you have pulled from the bishops' document.
1. Catholics are not single-issue voters.
This is true, but must be nuanced. There are some things that can disqualify a candidate; namely, intrinsic evils. The bishops say as much. If you would not vote for Hitler, then you are, at times, a single-issue voter. You think killing Jews is wrong and based on that single issue, you disqualify Hitler from receiving your vote.
2. 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.
This is not the wording from the document. Your re-wording changes the tone a bit. Here is the original statement: "The second [temptation] is the misuse of these necessary moral distinctions [between human life and dignity] as a way of dismissing or ignoring other serious threats to human life and dignity" (FC, no. 29). In response, I do not ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity, but I subordinate those concerns according to the sentences immediately preceding in the document, which say, "The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death...must always be opposed" (FC, no. 28).
3. The right to life implies and is linked to other human rights – to basic goods that every human person needs to live and thrive.
Indeed, the right to life is prior to other human rights. Without life, no rights can be exercised. In a perfect world, our candidate would support both the right to life and "other human rights," but when forced to choose, we must choose the prior gift, without which, there can be no discussion of "other human rights."
4. It is not enough to oppose evil, we must do good.
And inasmuch as we are able, we should try to accomplish both in a single political candidate, but when we are forced to choose between opposing evil and doing good, we must always vote against intrinsic evils (except, possibly in the case where both candidates support intrinsic evils). Then we make up for what good is lacking in the candidate of choice by doing our part in the world.
(This quote that you site (#4) implies to me that you think your choice is doing good, and mine is opposing evil. If so, then your implied question is where is the good you should be doing? I could in turn ask, where is the evil you should be opposing? But neither question is fair because the political realm is not the only realm of human operation.)
God bless,
George
Post a Comment