5 Non-Negotiable Issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter awke
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think I will stick with the Pope who has distanced himself from the term “Non-Negotiable” values.

How can the Conservatives continue to hod up this idea of the “Non-Negotiables” when the Holy Father doesn’t give it credence?
 
ringil said:
I think I will stick with the Pope who has distanced himself from the term “Non-Negotiable” values.
Click to expand...
I was unaware of this. Which of the five items does the pope support? What has he said that makes you think this?

Ender
 
ringil said:
I think I will stick with the Pope who has distanced himself from the term “Non-Negotiable” values.
Click to expand...
I will repost the quote:
“I have never understood the expression non-negotiable values. Values are values, and that is it. I can’t say that, of the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than the rest. Whereby I do not understand in what sense there may be negotiable values.” - Pope Francis

The idea of the fab five makes better bumper stickers and pamphlets than moral theology. Even these five are not the same weight, and which values bear more weight than some of them, and which of these aren’t of quite the same weight, is quite debatable.
 
pnewton said:
I will repost the quote:
“I have never understood the expression non-negotiable values. Values are values, and that is it. I can’t say that, of the fingers of a hand, there is one less useful than the rest. Whereby I do not understand in what sense there may be negotiable values.” - Pope Francis

The idea of the fab five makes better bumper stickers and pamphlets than moral theology. Even these five are not the same weight, and which values bear more weight than some of them, and which of these aren’t of quite the same weight, is quite debatable.
Click to expand...
This is all very clever but misses the point. The concern clearly is about the positions one may legitimately take on various political issues. The five non-negotiable values are nothing more than five issues that involve intrinsic evils, meaning one position on those issues is, for Catholics, forbidden. For all the other political concerns one may take opposing stands without violating church doctrine, just not on those five.

Ender
 
Ender said:
This is all very clever but misses the point. The concern clearly is about the positions one may legitimately take on various political issues. The five non-negotiable values are nothing more than five issues that involve intrinsic evils, meaning one position on those issues is, for Catholics, forbidden. For all the other political concerns one may take opposing stands without violating church doctrine, just not on those five.

Ender
Click to expand...
Surely these five issues are not the only five that involve intrinsic evils and are therefore not open to debate, which makes me wonder why they are explicitly listed as if the list were exhaustive.
 
Ender said:
This is all very clever but misses the point. The concern clearly is about the positions one may legitimately take on various political issues. The five non-negotiable values are nothing more than five issues that involve intrinsic evils, meaning one position on those issues is, for Catholics, forbidden. For all the other political concerns one may take opposing stands without violating church doctrine, just not on those five.

Ender
Click to expand...
Here – write a letter to Pope Francis and explain why he’s wrong in noting the theologically problematic nature of the “non-negotiables”:

vatican.usembassy.gov/vatican/writing.html
 
This was OK when Benedict XVI and John Paul II were Pope, but now it isn’t ? Sounds rather capricious.
 
The Pope Francis quote simply says it’s all non-negotiable–I assume by values he is talking about matters of faith and morals. And there are certainly more than five intrinsic evils, but those are some common ones supported today. That being said, there are obviously plenty of negotiable political concerns and I don’t think Pope Francis would deny this–like whether or not to fix the potholes on main street versus the potholes on broad street this year, etc., etc.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Surely these five issues are not the only five that involve intrinsic evils and are therefore not open to debate, which makes me wonder why they are explicitly listed as if the list were exhaustive.
Click to expand...
There are of course quite a number of acts that are intrinsically evil, but I am not aware that any of them are specifically political issues. If there are other political positions than these five that are evil on their face I am unaware of them. Perhaps you could suggest some others if you believe they exist.

Ender
 
Genesis315 said:
The Pope Francis quote simply says it’s all non-negotiable–I assume by values he is talking about matters of faith and morals. And there are certainly more than five intrinsic evils, but those are some common ones supported today. That being said, there are obviously plenty of negotiable political concerns and I don’t think Pope Francis would deny this–like whether or not to fix the potholes on main street versus the potholes on broad street this year, etc., etc.
Click to expand...
There are more than five intrinsic evils, but not such as are currently topics of political conflict; i.e., genocide is an intrinsic evil, but no-one is publicly defending it.

ICXC NIKA
 
We’ve been through this many times on CAF. Someone will raise an issue like torture, which is also an intrinsic evil. Then someone else will claim that it isn’t part of a party’s platform, as though the only evils that can be considered are those that are publicly championed by a party even though one party clearly favors the use of torture more than the other. Then perhaps someone will claim that “enhanced interrogation” isn’t torture. And on and on it goes.
 
Ender said:
There are of course quite a number of acts that are intrinsically evil, but I am not aware that any of them are specifically political issues. If there are other political positions than these five that are evil on their face I am unaware of them. Perhaps you could suggest some others if you believe they exist.

Ender
Click to expand...
I think I could come up with issues of intrinsic evil that are at least as political as human cloning, which does not appear in political debates at all as far as I know. With the bar set this low, do you still doubt it?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I think I could come up with issues of intrinsic evil that are at least as political as human cloning, which does not appear in political debates at all as far as I know. With the bar set this low, do you still doubt it?
Click to expand...
What I doubt is that there are other current political issues involving acts that are intrinsically evil. Supporting abortion is intrinsically evil; opposing an increase in the minimum wage is not. Supporting euthanasia is, supporting a barrier across our southern border is not. Supporting homosexual “marriage” is, opposing Obamacare is not. Right now there are five political choices Catholics may not legitimately support. The obligation to refrain from supporting them may be a low bar for you, but it seems higher than many Catholics are able to achieve.

Ender
 
Ender said:
What I doubt is that there are other current political issues involving acts that are intrinsically evil. Supporting abortion is intrinsically evil; opposing an increase in the minimum wage is not. Supporting euthanasia is, supporting a barrier across our southern border is not. Supporting homosexual “marriage” is, opposing Obamacare is not. Right now there are five political choices Catholics may not legitimately support. The obligation to refrain from supporting them may be a low bar for you, but it seems higher than many Catholics are able to achieve.

Ender
Click to expand...
My question is why human cloning is on the list but genocide is not. Genocide at least has actually happened numerous times, while human cloning is only a sci-fi dream at this point, and no politician is actually championing it. And although no politician is championing genocide either, there are issues of foreign affairs where support for a regime that engages in genocide might be a real question.
 
The big problem with rejecting the non-negotiables, is that it enables individuals to make the argument that it’s ok to vote for pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage politicians over candidates strongly opposed to those things, because you feel they have a stronger voting record on social justice issues.
 
Seamus_L said:
The big problem with rejecting the non-negotiables, is that it enables individuals to make the argument that it’s ok to vote for pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage politicians over candidates strongly opposed to those things, because you feel they have a stronger voting record on social justice issues.
Click to expand...
Why is that a problem?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
My question is why human cloning is on the list but genocide is not. Genocide at least has actually happened numerous times, while human cloning is only a sci-fi dream at this point, and no politician is actually championing it. And although no politician is championing genocide either, there are issues of foreign affairs where support for a regime that engages in genocide might be a real question.
Click to expand...
Given that animal cloning has obviously been achieved, the technology involved in cloning a human being is hardly science fiction. It is in fact closely tied to embryonic stem cell research in the way its “benefits” are touted. The technology certainly exists to make the attempt.

But you make the wrong point. If you wish to argue that human cloning should not be on the list, go for it. There is still no argument that other, non-issues should be included. Genocide is not on the list because no one supports it; it is not an issue that distinguishes one party or person from another therefore the question is irrelevant.

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top