5 Non-Negotiable Issues

[Sy_Noe]

That’s one of my problems with the term “non-negotiable.” It is so black and white that a person following those guidelines would almost never be able to vote. There are very, very few candidates who are 100% in line with Catholic teaching on those matters and if you vote for someone who isn’t isn’t 100% in line, you have basically said that those issues are, in fact, negotiable.

You see that all the time in the news forum. Someone will say, for example, that abortion is non-negotiable and then turn around and say they are supporting a candidate who supports abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother because they are better than another candidate on those issues. Now, that reasoning may be fine, but it’s still a form of negotiation.

Saying an issue is non-negotiable and supporting a candidate who isn’t 100% percent on that issue is talking the talk without walking the walk. Words have meaning and “non-negotiable” means that you absolutely can not and will not accept anything less than 100%. People will say well 98% is better than 80% or 50% is better than 0 and, again, that may be sound reasoning but it’s still a negotiation of principles they are claiming aren’t negotiable.

You know, Songcatcher, I actually never looked at it in that way but I see your point.

 

[Ender]

In the original 1983 Code of Canon Law there was a section that dealt with “formal defection” from the Catholic Church. What qualified as “formal defection” was rather vague and various opinions abounded. In the early to mid 80’s its quite possible that a well meaning priest sincerely tried to interpret what formal defection meant or was given certain instructions from his Bishop’s office. In 2006 the Pontifical Commission for Legislative Texts issued a “Notification” that narrowly defined formal defection.However in 2009 any reference to formal defection was abolished from the code of canon law.…

I don’t have access to a 2009 version of Canon Law. If you have a link to it I would appreciate it if you would provide it. The version I used is the one provided by the Vatican web site.

Ender

 

[Sy_Noe]

I don’t have access to a 2009 version of Canon Law. If you have a link to it I would appreciate it if you would provide it. The version I used is the one provided by the Vatican web site.

Ender

While I wouldn’t be surprised with the wealth of knowledge you appear to have, that you are already well aware of this, but canon 1117 which you previously quoted along with other codes, were amended by decree of Benedict 16 on Oct 26, 2009.

"Therefore I decree that in the same Code the following words are to be eliminated: “and has not left it by a formal act” (can. 1117); “and has not left it by means of a formal act” (can. 1086 § 1); “and has not left it by a formal act” (can. 1124).

w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici.html

IOW, Catholic Answers apologist Fr Grondin was indeed correct on this one.

“In 2009 any reference to formal defection was abolished from the code of canon law.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13171460&postcount=2

But I suppose here on out, should you continue to take issue with this matter and want a back and forth, you may have to take it up with Fr Grondin or Pope Emeritis Benedict XVI because I have no more to say.

Peace be with you and brightest blessings!

 

[Ender]

The purpose of the list is not the tell us which issues are in the public square and which are not. The purpose of the list is to distinguish between issues that are “non-negotiable” (whatever that means) from issues that are in some sense negotiable.

The OP actually provides a very clear distinction between negotiable and non-negotiable issues. The word “negotiable” may perhaps not be the clearest adjective, but it is serviceable enough. The “non-negotiable” issues (e.g. abortion) involve acts that are intrinsically evil, therefore there is no justification for debating how they can best be resolved. There is only one moral position available.

The “negotiable” issues (e.g. taking care of the poor), by contrast, are entirely prudential. Disagreement about what steps will best accomplish that end is valid; it does not involve moral choices. That is, the church has taken a position on the non-negotiable issues (not values), but not on the negotiable ones.

When you say this list is limited to the items it has because of which issues cross a certain threshold of public awareness, you are implying that there may be many other issues that are also non-negotiable, but are omitted from the list by their not meeting this somewhat arbitrary threshold.

“Politically relevant” is not all that arbitrary a criterion for a voter’s guide.

When you find yourself torn between two issues - one of which is on the list and the other is not, it may be that your idea of what is sufficiently “in the public square” is not the same as the writers of this list.

It is always possible to suppose such issues exist. It is usually much more difficult to actually make a case for one in particular.

The two issues might actually be equally non-negotiable. How then do you decide between two issues that are both non-negotiable, but you cannot have them both? For instance torture vs. gay marriage. Gay marriage is on the list. Torture is not. If your voting decision only allows you to support one of these issues, which one should you support?

Torture is not on the list because no one has come out in support of it. Gay “marriage” is there because specific people specifically support it. If you want to make a case for torture then at a minimum you should cite someone who advocates it.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

That’s one of my problems with the term “non-negotiable.” It is so black and white that a person following those guidelines would almost never be able to vote. There are very, very few candidates who are 100% in line with Catholic teaching on those matters and if you vote for someone who isn’t isn’t 100% in line, you have basically said that those issues are, in fact, negotiable.

You see that all the time in the news forum. Someone will say, for example, that abortion is non-negotiable and then turn around and say they are supporting a candidate who supports abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother because they are better than another candidate on those issues. Now, that reasoning may be fine, but it’s still a form of negotiation.

Saying an issue is non-negotiable and supporting a candidate who isn’t 100% percent on that issue is talking the talk without walking the walk. Words have meaning and “non-negotiable” means that you absolutely can not and will not accept anything less than 100%. People will say well 98% is better than 80% or 50% is better than 0 and, again, that may be sound reasoning but it’s still a negotiation of principles they are claiming aren’t negotiable.

It surprises me some that many insist they must be 100% for one candidate or the other or not vote at all.

There is such a thing as voting FOR a candidate and what he/she stands for, and there is also voting AGAINST a candidate. Not to violate Godwin’s law, but if there was an election and the two candidates are U.S. Grant and Hitler, what would the moral choice be? U.S. Grant was a terrible president. His administration was perhaps the most corrupt in U.S. history. But even knowing that, would a person not have a moral obligation to vote for him if the only other candidate was Hitler?

Would a person really be making the moral choice by not voting at all if the failure to vote for Grant increased Hitler’s chances?

One could pick just about any Repub presidential candidate, look at the alternative on the Dem side, and know that opposing the Dem candidate is the moral choice even if one has problems of a lesser sort with the Repub. I think that’s what we’re dealing with much of the time, and certainly in this presidential race.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Torture is not on the list because no one has come out in support of it. Gay “marriage” is there because specific people specifically support it. If you want to make a case for torture then at a minimum you should cite someone who advocates it.

Ender

I suspect there’s another reason. There is no consensus on what constitutes “torture”. Opinions vary between, say, burning a person alive and merely detaining him forcefully.

Abortion is clear cut. Homosexual “marriage” is clear cut.

 

[pnewton]

I suspect there’s another reason. There is no consensus on what constitutes “torture”. Opinions vary between, say, burning a person alive and merely detaining him forcefully.

Abortion is clear cut.

Morality does not just apply on issues that are easy to agree upon. We may disagree with child discipline, yet I think we can all agree that it should be illegal to burn a child with cigarettes or sexually molest him. Catholic have to consider all moral issues. If a man is running for offense in which I believe his position on immigration, to use one example, is cruel and clearly immoral, I am right to weigh that in my decision. The fact immigration as a whole is not “clear cut” does not eliminate the moral component or alleviate me of my responsibility. This is what is meant by no moral issues are negotiable. We can disagree over them. We should not disregard them.

 

[Ender]

That’s one of my problems with the term “non-negotiable.” It is so black and white that a person following those guidelines would almost never be able to vote.

Intrinsic evils are matters of black and white. They are always wrong.

There are very, very few candidates who are 100% in line with Catholic teaching on those matters and if you vote for someone who isn’t isn’t 100% in line, you have basically said that those issues are, in fact, negotiable.

There aren’t very many issues on which the church has taken a specific position, so it actually isn’t all that difficult to conform with her teaching. One legitimate issue that can arise is the question of whether one may select the lesser of two evils in the case where neither candidate is fully in line with the church. The answer to that, as the church has pointed out, is yes. This is not a question of negotiating with evil; it is about not making the perfect the enemy of the good.

You see that all the time in the news forum. Someone will say, for example, that abortion is non-negotiable and then turn around and say they are supporting a candidate who supports abortion in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother because they are better than another candidate on those issues. Now, that reasoning may be fine, but it’s still a form of negotiation.

The church defines abortion as intrinsically evil; that is it is wrong in every instance. She has also explicitly said, however, that half a loaf is better than none. As JPII wrote in Evangelium Vitae about supporting a law limiting but not eliminating some evil: “This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.”

Saying an issue is non-negotiable and supporting a candidate who isn’t 100% percent on that issue is talking the talk without walking the walk. Words have meaning and “non-negotiable” means that you absolutely can not and will not accept anything less than 100%. People will say well 98% is better than 80% or 50% is better than 0 and, again, that may be sound reasoning but it’s still a negotiation of principles they are claiming aren’t negotiable.

This is not what the church teaches. In certain cases:*…incremental improvements in the law are acceptable as steps toward the full restoration of justice. *(Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship #32, USCCB)
Ender

 

[Birdpreacher]

Now get ready for the fun part. You can vote for liberals who are pro-choice, if you truly believe that an expansion of the welfare state/greater resources to women in crisis pregnancies will lead to less abortions.

So merely doing a “who wants to end abortion” analysis might not cut it for some (afterall abortion has been around for 50 years and shows no sign of going anywhere)

Also some pro-lifers also want to vote for liberals because we already have euthanasia through death panels, they’re called insurance companies. You ability to make $$$ is tied to your coverage, aka your ability to be alive.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The OP actually provides a very clear distinction between negotiable and non-negotiable issues. The word “negotiable” may perhaps not be the clearest adjective, but it is serviceable enough. The “non-negotiable” issues (e.g. abortion) involve acts that are intrinsically evil, therefore there is no justification for debating how they can best be resolved. There is only one moral position available.

The “negotiable” issues (e.g. taking care of the poor), by contrast, are entirely prudential. Disagreement about what steps will best accomplish that end is valid; it does not involve moral choices. That is, the church has taken a position on the non-negotiable issues (not values), but not on the negotiable ones.

All you have done is equate negotiable with prudential. That may help as far as classification is concerned, but it does not further any understanding of how the voting guide based on this list is to be applied. Only one issue can exercise a veto over all the others. As soon as you have more than one issue on the list, you are still faced with the possibility of “negotiating” between two list issues, or at least between two non-prudential issues.

“Politically relevant” is not all that arbitrary a criterion for a voter’s guide.

Of course it is. It is totally a matter of prudential judgement whether an issue such as torture is politically relevant. If the voter’s guide is to avoid taking positions on prudential matters, it should avoid taking positions on this one too.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I suspect there’s another reason. There is no consensus on what constitutes “torture”. Opinions vary between, say, burning a person alive and merely detaining him forcefully.

Abortion is clear cut. Homosexual “marriage” is clear cut.

Let me give you an example where the issue of homosexual marriage is not clear cut. According to some, “civil unions” are just as bad a “homosexual marriage”. Take a proposal that gives a tax break to two men who share a home, but do not confer any other rights normally associated with marriage. Is that clear cut “gay marriage” or not? I think deciding what is and what is not gay marriage can be just as prudential as deciding what is and what is not torture.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Let me give you an example where the issue of homosexual marriage is not clear cut. According to some, “civil unions” are just as bad a “homosexual marriage”. Take a proposal that gives a tax break to two men who share a home, but do not confer any other rights normally associated with marriage. Is that clear cut “gay marriage” or not? I think deciding what is and what is not gay marriage can be just as prudential as deciding what is and what is not torture.

Do you think? There is almost nothing a “civil union” does that people can’t do contractually without one. So what is a “civil union”? It’s a near-approximation of marriage and intended as a state acceptance of homosexual unions as close an equivalent to marriage as some states could get before Obergefell. Of course, now that the Supreme Court has imposed homosexual marriage on the entire nation, “civil unions” are now passe. Seems clear-cut to me.

But regardless, from a Catholic perspective, homosexual unions are always immoral, no matter what they’re called. Calling them “marriages” simply demeans what the Church has always regarded as a sacrament, and is scandalous as an affirmation of immoral behavior. (…it were better for him that he tie a millstone…) Again, clear-cut.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Now get ready for the fun part. You can vote for liberals who are pro-choice, if you truly believe that an expansion of the welfare state/greater resources to women in crisis pregnancies will lead to less abortions.

.

No.

Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Whether the child dies or lives is not a matter of opinion. It’s an absolute.

Whether expansion of the welfare state leads to fewer abortion is a matter of opinion.

 

[Birdpreacher]

No.

Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Whether the child dies or lives is not a matter of opinion. It’s an absolute.

Whether expansion of the welfare state leads to fewer abortion is a matter of opinion.

Ahh but now for the fun part!!

Will voting in a pro-lifer do anything to stop the recoginziation of abortion as a constitutional right? Of course not. Hence we had abortion during presidencies of Regan, HW, W Bush.

Say you vote your guy in, abortions still happen, or even worse, they make abortion illegal and women get them done anyway, illegally. A bit of a hollow victory for fetal life, eh?

Now, as some pro-life liberals believe, you expand resources to mothers and give more benefits to women in crisis pregnancies, this appears to attack the very demand of a large population of women who want abortions. You actually CAUSE fetal life to come into this world. IF a CATHOLIC TRULY BELIEVES that the number of abortions will go down using this strategy. IT IS PERFECTLY OK TO VOTE FOR A PRO-CHOICE candidate.

 

[clem456]

No.

Abortion is an intrinsic evil. Whether the child dies or lives is not a matter of opinion. It’s an absolute.

Whether expansion of the welfare state leads to fewer abortion is a matter of opinion.

Exactly.
If a man is threatening to kill a person on the street, my first priority is to prevent that evil.
If the person had extenuating circumstances that have caused him to behave in such a way, that is a valid concern which must also be addressed however possible, but not at the expense of preventing the greatest evil.

Especially in an area like politics, where the proposed solutions to the problem of unwanted life are frequently mere patronizing gestures.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Exactly.
If a man is threatening to kill a person on the street, my first priority is to prevent that evil.
If the person had extenuating circumstances that have caused him to behave in such a way, that is a valid concern which must also be addressed however possible, but not at the expense of preventing the greatest evil.

Especially in an area like politics, where the proposed solutions to the problem of unwanted life are frequently mere patronizing gestures.

If a woman in your neighborhood can’t emotionally and financially be a parent. Will you be willing to pay for kid, adopt it? How many kids have you adopted as a result?

Hypotheticals are great. And I’m glad you are stopping this “killer” from doing evil. But reality is far more complex.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Do you think? There is almost nothing a “civil union” does that people can’t do contractually without one. So what is a “civil union”? It’s a near-approximation of marriage and intended as a state acceptance of homosexual unions as close an equivalent to marriage as some states could get before Obergefell. Of course, now that the Supreme Court has imposed homosexual marriage on the entire nation, “civil unions” are now passe. Seems clear-cut to me.

That is not enough. As a justification for being on the list, it must be clear cut to everyone.

But regardless, from a Catholic perspective, homosexual unions are always immoral, no matter what they’re called. Calling them “marriages” simply demeans what the Church has always regarded as a sacrament, and is scandalous as an affirmation of immoral behavior. (…it were better for him that he tie a millstone…) Again, clear-cut.

If it is so clear cut, why were you unable to answer my simple question of whether a tax break for two men who share a home is, in an of itself, close enough to homosexual “marriage” to call it an instance of a non-negotiable issue. Remember, you said the items on the list were all clear cut. Well, cut this one for me and just tell me whether or not the tax break I mentioned is one of those non-negotiable items.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Ahh but now for the fun part!!

Will voting in a pro-lifer do anything to stop the recoginziation of abortion as a constitutional right? Of course not. Hence we had abortion during presidencies of Regan, HW, W Bush.

Say you vote your guy in, abortions still happen, or even worse, they make abortion illegal and women get them done anyway, illegally. A bit of a hollow victory for fetal life, eh?

Now, as some pro-life liberals believe, you expand resources to mothers and give more benefits to women in crisis pregnancies, this appears to attack the very demand of a large population of women who want abortions. You actually CAUSE fetal life to come into this world. IF a CATHOLIC TRULY BELIEVES that the number of abortions will go down using this strategy. IT IS PERFECTLY OK TO VOTE FOR A PRO-CHOICE candidate.

The fun part? Kind of a grim topic for “fun”.

At a point, one really has to accept it that commitments matter and that actions matter, even if neither accomplishes everything one might want.

The Repub appointees to the Supreme Court are Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas. The Dem appointees are Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer.

Of them, those who vote for abortion without fail are Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and Kennedy. But, in the partial birth abortion ban case, it was too much even for Kennedy, so state partial birth abortion bans were approved by Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas. Voting to oppose those bans were Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan. As absolutely horrific as “partial birth abortions” are, they still wanted them legal. So now states can limit or even ban them, thanks ONLY to the Republican appointees.

G.W. Bush instituted all kinds of prolife orders, the Mexico City Accords and many others. Obama undid them all. Repubs have done a lot on both the federal and state level to oppose and limit abortion. Dems have done nothing at all.

The majority of Americans do not oppose abortion in all cases, but they do oppose abortion on demand, and favor restrictions on it. The Dem party says right in its platform that it supports abortion. The Repub party says the opposite.

And no, it is not “perfectly ok for a Catholic to vote for an abortion-supporting candidate”. The “but if there were more benefits to pregnant women there would be fewer abortions, so support the welfare-promoter” argument doesn’t work. First, there’s no evidence for it. But second, when the Dems had an absolutely bulletproof lock on power right after Obama’s election, did they provide additional assistance to pregnant women and encouragement not to abort? No they didn’t.

Repub measures to restrict abortion haven’t all been successful, but some have been, particularly at the state level. Only one abortion clinic remains in my state, for example, thanks to a Repub legislature.

Dems have done absolutely nothing to restrict it, and defend it every way there is to do it.

 

[Birdpreacher]

The fun part? Kind of a grim topic for “fun”.

Its fun in that most Conservative Catholics believe that voting begins and ends with the candidate’s stance on abortion. Which, at the most, is a dreadfully simplistic and naive way to look at the problem. A view which neo-cons, war-mongers, and in bed with wall-street candidates have used to win the “morality” argument. When every candidate knows that the President’s view on abortion will do nothing other than window dressing. (face it abortion has been around for 50 years, its not going anywhere)

The Repub appointees to the Supreme Court are Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas. The Dem appointees are Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer.

Of them, those who vote for abortion without fail are Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer and Kennedy. But, in the partial birth abortion ban case, it was too much even for Kennedy, so state partial birth abortion bans were approved by Kennedy, Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas. Voting to oppose those bans were Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, Kagan. As absolutely horrific as “partial birth abortions” are, they still wanted them legal. So now states can limit or even ban them, thanks ONLY to the Republican appointees.

Justice Kennedy still subscribed to Roe in Casey vs. PLanned Parenthood. So partial birth abortions aside, which make up a small number of abortions to begin with, he still championed womens’ right to get abortions. I’m not saying whether he’s right or wrong for it, just that even a Bush appointee sides on upholding abortion. THis shows how little headway the pro-life movement is making in regards to illegalizing abortion, which in of itself wouldn’t gurantee an end to the practice of ending fetal life.

Heck, even Justice Roberts declined on joining in Thomas’ concurring opinion in Gonzales which asserted that Roe was bad law and needed to be overturned.

And no, it is not “perfectly ok for a Catholic to vote for an abortion-supporting candidate”. The “but if there were more benefits to pregnant women there would be fewer abortions, so support the welfare-promoter” argument doesn’t work. First, there’s no evidence for it. But second, when the Dems had an absolutely bulletproof lock on power right after Obama’s election, did they provide additional assistance to pregnant women and encouragement not to abort? No they didn’t.

Thats the thing. It is perfectly ok. Just because in your heart of hearts you believe that electing officials who will throw abortion doctors in jail will save fetal life (and your welcome to that belief) There are pro-life people who only see in their heart of hearts that fetal life is best protected by a government that has many welfare benefits for women in crisis pregnancies. You may think that things like healthcare reform, equal pay for women, and universal pre-K may have no effect on abortion, but there are many smart pro-lifers who feel differently.

Repub measures to restrict abortion haven’t all been successful, but some have been, particularly at the state level. Only one abortion clinic remains in my state, for example, thanks to a Repub legislature.
Dems have done absolutely nothing to restrict it, and defend it every way there is to do it.

See all that work and patting on the back by the republicans when all they have done is cranked up the waiting room line or force the women to travel across state lines to procure an abortion, IMO unless you tackle the DEMAND there will be no culture of life here. I mean think about it, you can’t have a world without abortion and be a unbridled capitalist nation, there will have to be an expansion of the welfare state to account for all the kids being born to parents who do not want them and/or objectively can’t care for them financially or emotionally

 

[LeafByNiggle]

(face it abortion has been around for 50 years, its not going anywhere)

In the1850s one could say an even stronger statement about slavery. “Slavery has been around in the US for more than 200 years; its not going anywhere.” And look how that turned out. So I think your assumption is unwarranted.