Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[vern_humphrey]

I think you accidentally cut off part of the citation. I believe it reads: “may decide to vote for the candidate Vern has deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position…” (emphasis mine).

Ah, more snide remarks.

Let us know when you have something of substance to say.

 

[SoCalRC]

*“36. 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.” *

Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007
usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

Ender

But where does it say that one can select a more imperfect ‘viable’ candidate over a less viable, but more just one (Vern’s postion)?

Also note that the Bishops distribute the Doctrinal Note from the Vatican and note that the issue is important enought that not participating can be considered.

 

[Ender]

I think you accidentally cut off part of the citation. I believe it reads: “may decide to vote for the candidate Vern has deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position…” (emphasis mine).

I’m sorry but I don’t understand your point. Are you claiming that the citation I provided doesn’t address the issue Vern and SoCal have been discussing? It seems pretty straightforward to me that the bishops are saying that there are times when a Catholic may indeed vote for someone who “holds a position in favor of an intrinsic evil.” Are you disputing that?

How about this one? Surely it’s understandable.

35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

And your perception is merely your perception. I prefet to go with the Catechism.

Actually, the Catechism makes no mention of compromise, nor does the Doctrinal Note from the Vatican.

The USCCB Bishop’s have issued a statement raising he spectre of compromise (or electing to not participate), but your application - selecting a ‘viable’ candidate instead of “wasting” your vote on a morally more perfect one, does not appear.

 

[vz71]

But where does it say that one can select a more imperfect ‘viable’ candidate over a less viable, but more just one (Vern’s postion)?

Also note that the Bishops distribute the Doctrinal Note from the Vatican and note that the issue is important enought that not participating can be considered.

Given the church’s respective positions on both abortion and the death penalty, it would seems fairly obvious that a candidate in favor of the death penalty and against abortion would be favored over an anti-death penalty pro-abortion candidate.

 

[Ender]

The USCCB Bishop’s have issued a statement raising he spectre of compromise (or electing to not participate), but your application - selecting a ‘viable’ candidate instead of “wasting” your vote on a morally more perfect one, does not appear.

Oh sure it does; I don’t know how much more explicit the bishops could make it.

34. … A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position.

Clearly, if the voter’s intent is not to support that position, he may vote for a candidate who “takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil.”

The three paragraphs I cited (34 - 36) make it unmistakably clear that there are times when a voter may support a candidate in spite of (although not because of) his position on an intrinsic evil. I will also point out that these paragraphs refer to intrinsic evils, of which the death penalty is not one.

Ender

 

[frankadams]

Ah, more snide remarks.

Let us know when you have something of substance to say.

Vern, the “snide remark” springs from a truthful observation. You have made a habit of telling Catholic whom they may and may not licitly vote for.

As noted by Ender, the document reads: “When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma.”

Now we know Democratic presidential candidates have favored abortion-on-demand (Slick Willie’s “safe, legal, and rare” mantra aside). And we also know Republican candidates have favored abortion in cases of rape and incest. Leaving aside (for the time being) a third party candidate who opposes all abortions, one could logically see this as a situation in which “all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinisic evil.”

This, then, would lead us to the “deeming” dimension. The document states that we “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.”

You, Vern, have sloppily thrown around the phrases “pro-choice” and “pro-life” without nuance. The Republican candidates are, in fact, “pro-choice” when it comes to victims of rape and incest. Nonetheless, you have said we must vote for them over the conventional “pro-choice” candidate. Thus, it looks like you have “deemed” one candidate who “holds a position in favor of an intrinsic evil” as being “less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.” And as you have presented this conclusion as morally binding upon the rest of us Catholic voters, I thought my amended citation might better suit your thinking on this issue.

 

[Ender]

You have made a habit of telling Catholic whom they may and may not licitly vote for.

Although I think it is a deplorable document, the bishops statement on voting clearly allows people to support candidates who support abortion. If there is one sentence that will be extracted from that document by people who intend to do just that as justification for their position it is this:

*42. As Catholics we are not single-issue voters. *

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

I’m sorry but I don’t understand your point. Are you claiming that the citation I provided doesn’t address the issue Vern and SoCal have been discussing? It seems pretty straightforward to me that the bishops are saying that there are times when a Catholic may indeed vote for someone who “holds a position in favor of an intrinsic evil.” Are you disputing that?

I agree that 34 is the critical one:

“34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”

The Bishops are indicating that some cooperation with evil may occur, but it is a limited principle.

Vern is arguing that he can select intrinsic evil over the absense of the same evil on the basis of viability. That is, he does not ‘waste’ his vote, but cooperates with the evil in its pursuit of political power because that power, in turn, will be used for good.

This is identical to the argument made by Catholics voting ‘pro choice’ (in political terms). Voting against Roe has been ineffectual, so they justify voting for other important moral principles on which they believe that there can be progress.

Vern has argued that his position is different, because abortion, his stated goal, is of special importance. This is doubly flawed, first, ‘pro choice’ Catholics may sincerely believe that they are addressing abortion in a different, and more effective way. Second, the Church does not elevate abortion to singular status in the context of voting - notice the example of abortion and racism. In the Doctrinal Note we have nine examples of non negotiable principles.

I find both applications very, very suspect. Both use direct complicency, at the expense of more direct and licit choices, for the sake of indirect progress via the political process.

I also am always suspicuous of any principle that a person will not uniformly apply. Notice that Vern argues that he can vote for intrinsic evil for the purpose of indirect political good, but vehemently objects to the same principle being exercised by others if they make different compromises then himself.

Finally, the bishop’s do not seem to introduce the concept of viability, or indirect intent, at all. They seem to suggest that we may have to decide between different imperfect candidates, but it does not clearly state that we can use electability as a proper moral criteria. In fact, it references the moral conscience repeatedly, which, in the context of Catechism, would seem to suggest that we are to vote on the balance of ‘most correct’, not ‘most probability of a successful outcome’.

 

[bilop]

Vern, the “snide remark” springs from a truthful observation. You have made a habit of telling Catholic whom they may and may not licitly vote for.

As noted by Ender, the document reads: “When all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma.”

Now we know Democratic presidential candidates have favored abortion-on-demand (Slick Willie’s “safe, legal, and rare” mantra aside). And we also know Republican candidates have favored abortion in cases of rape and incest. Leaving aside (for the time being) a third party candidate who opposes all abortions, one could logically see this as a situation in which “all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinisic evil.”

This, then, would lead us to the “deeming” dimension. The document states that we “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.”

You, Vern, have sloppily thrown around the phrases “pro-choice” and “pro-life” without nuance. The Republican candidates are, in fact, “pro-choice” when it comes to victims of rape and incest. Nonetheless, you have said we must vote for them over the conventional “pro-choice” candidate. Thus, it looks like you have “deemed” one candidate who “holds a position in favor of an intrinsic evil” as being “less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.” And as you have presented this conclusion as morally binding upon the rest of us Catholic voters, I thought my amended citation might better suit your thinking on this issue.

But isn’t it obvious that the pro-life position is to vote for the candidate who wants to outlaw 99.9% of all abortions?

I mean, imagine we were voting for a dictator. If one would allow 10,000 babies per year to be aborted, and one would allow 1 million to be aborted, isn’t it clear that as Catholics we MUST vote for the one who will save 990,000 babies?

Now, with a democratic system, the results are further removed and involve a variety of branches of government.

But, if every Catholic had voted for the most pro-life major party candidate (most restrictions on abortion) in every election since Roe v. Wade, the number of annual abortions in this country would be tiny. Roe v. Wade would have been overturned long ago, and every state would at least limit abortion to rape, incest, and life of the mother.

Instead of 1,000,000 plus dead babies each year we’d have maybe 50,000 (with doctors and women lying to procure abortions).

That would be a huge moral victory.

Thos 950,000 dead babies are on the conscience of every Catholic politicians who supports abortion, every Catholic voter who votes for Pro-Abortion candidates and every priest and bishop who has given them cover.

God Bless

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, the Catechism makes no mention of compromise, nor does the Doctrinal Note from the Vatican.

Not do I make any mention of compromose – that’s** your** spin.

The USCCB Bishop’s have issued a statement raising he spectre of compromise (or electing to not participate), but your application - selecting a ‘viable’ candidate instead of “wasting” your vote on a morally more perfect one, does not appear.

Once again, does the USCCB say I have to vote for a third party if one of the major party candidate espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position?

 

[fix]

Let’s review. At the beginning of #4 we have:

“Impossible” seems to preclude any form of support. However, the section continues by introducing a concept from Evangelium Vitae called “limiting the harm”:

At this point you might be shouting ‘see, see! Vern is just limiting the harm…’ There are several problems with this, for example Vern is not “an elected official”, nor is he voting on a “proposal”. So how far can we stretch JPII’s concept?

As you said, we have a Magisterium to help us. The next paragraph reads:

The concept of “limiting the harm” cannot be licitly used to compromise “fundemental contents of faith and morals”. At this point, the argument is settled, unless you want to argue that abortion and euthanasia are not infallibly held to be absolutes. However, just to make it clear, the document continues:

There is then a list of nine moral principles, abortion is first, euthanasia is second, and the rights of the human embryo is third. The list is ‘non negotiable’, the first sentence tells us so. If you are confused by the language, the list is referred to by Pope Benedict in SACRAMENTUM CARITATIS with the words “non negotiable”.

Nowhere in the doctrinal note is there approval for Vern’s position, which is that all nine can (actually he argues ‘should’) be compromised on because it allows one to pick the “lesser of evils” from not all candidates, but from the smaller pool of viable ones. Note that Vern has already declared that not voting for a viable candidate is a vote “wasted”. That is, he has expressly stated that political victory is of higher priority than supporting fundemental morals of Catholicism.

Nowhere in the letter from Cardinal Ratzinger that you wish to use is there approval for Vern’s position. It’s implication with regards to war and the death penalty can be debated, but it provides no argument to support comproming on abortion or euthanasia - which is Vern’s position.

Yes, we do. Why are you so reluctant to read and support it?

This is your private, and erroneous, interpretation.

We have posted, multiple times, the interpretation of these and other documents by bishops and cardinals. They contradict your interpretation.

I will stick with the Church. BTW, Vern has not suggested compromising on any moral teaching.

 

[frankadams]

This is your private, and erroneous, interpretation.

We have posted, multiple times, the interpretation of these and other documents by bishops and cardinals. They contradict your interpretation.

I will stick with the Church. BTW, Vern has not suggested compromising on any moral teaching.

Actually, Vern has suggested that I am obligated to vote for a candidate who supports abortion in cases of rape and incest, which the Church identifies as an “intrinsic evil.” I’d have to think that’s a bit of a compromise, no?

 

[frankadams]

I will stick with the Church.

I like your attitude! Now, if we can only get other posters here to stick with the Church when it comes to capital punishment and the war in Iraq, we might all work toward building a true “culture of life.”

 

[Ender]

The Bishops are indicating that some cooperation with evil may occur, but it is a limited principle.

They surely tried to set guidelines that a voter must legitimately address but they just as surely permit voting for someone who supports an issue of intrinsic evil.

{Vern’s argument} is identical to the argument made by Catholics voting ‘pro choice’ (in political terms). Voting against Roe has been ineffectual, so they justify voting for other important moral principles on which they believe that there can be progress.

The arguments are certainly similar. That doesn’t address the question of which (if either) of them is correct.

first, ‘pro choice’ Catholics may sincerely believe that they are addressing abortion in a different, and more effective way.

I don’t think many people hold that they have a more effective way of eliminating abortions - although some surely take that position - generally the pro-abortion politician is supported because his position on other issues is deemed more significant.

Second, the Church does not elevate abortion to singular status in the context of voting - notice the example of abortion and racism.

Well, it does … and then in the next paragraph it doesn’t. I think putting racism in the same category as abortion is the perfect example of the muddle the bishops have given us.

I also am always suspicuous of any principle that a person will not uniformly apply.

That we may disagree about the proper application of a principle shouldn’t keep us from agreeing on what the principle actually is. I think Vern’s disagreement is over the application.

Finally, the bishop’s do not seem to introduce the concept of viability, or indirect intent, at all. They seem to suggest that we may have to decide between different imperfect candidates, but it does not clearly state that we can use electability as a proper moral criteria. In fact, it references the moral conscience repeatedly, which, in the context of Catechism, would seem to suggest that we are to vote on the balance of ‘most correct’, not ‘most probability of a successful outcome’.

There is nothing in the document to support that conclusion. In fact, given the intent of the document - which is put out prior to each presidential election to help voters decide for whom to vote - that conclusion seems completely improbable. If this document is not about helping to choose between Republican A and Democrat B then it is of no practical use whatever and they should simply have said: “Everybody is an imperfect schlub: don’t vote.”

Ender

 

[fix]

Actually, Vern has suggested that I am obligated to vote for a candidate who supports abortion in cases of rape and incest, which the Church identifies as an “intrinsic evil.” I’d have to think that’s a bit of a compromise, no?

I have seen Vern ask a specific question. Answering that question requires knowledge of moral theology. He has never suggested compromise or the false theory of proportionalism.

The answer has been given by some bishops and cardinals. When the reponses are posted we hear that such and such a bishop is not from my diocese or some explanation was private and therefore does not apply.

It is as if truth depends on where we live or how we decide to parse some particular document.

Again, we have a living magisterium to ask questions of. I have yet to see the teaching office state what some here claim.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Actually, Vern has suggested that I am obligated to vote for a candidate who supports abortion in cases of rape and incest, which the Church identifies as an “intrinsic evil.” I’d have to think that’s a bit of a compromise, no?

No, Vern has** not** suggested that. That’s just more of your spin.

Vern has said, given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, a Catholic cannot morally vote for the latter.

Do you disagree?

 

[frankadams]

No, Vern has** not** suggested that. That’s just more of your spin.

Vern has said, given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, a Catholic cannot morally vote for the latter.

Do you disagree?

I am presuming you mean a situation like our American one in which “imperfectly” means supports abortion in cases of rape and incest?

Yes, I disagree.

“36. 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.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship - USCCB, 2007
usccb.org/faithfulcitizen…CStatement.pdf

If a Catholic’s “careful deliberation” leads him to “deem” that the pro-choice candidate is "less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods," then yes, I disagree.

 

[frankadams]

No, Vern has** not** suggested that. That’s just more of your spin.

Vern has said, given two candidates, one of whom espouses the pro-life position, albeit imperfectly, and the other espouses the pro-choice position, a Catholic cannot morally vote for the latter.

Do you disagree?

Do you agree with your own statement?

 

[SoCalRC]

Not do I make any mention of compromose – that’s** your** spin.

“albiet imperfect”

Perhaps the words do not mean what you think they mean.