Abortion, Deathpenalty, Intrinsic Value of Life?

[Ender]

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.

I think this position is seriously flawed … but the bishop’s have clearly made this an acceptable choice. In fact I find their entire document essentially says: “It’s OK to vote for a Democrat despite the fact that he supports abortion.” (Overlook for the moment those few Republicans who support abortion and the equally few Democrats who oppose it.) I can hardly excoriate Frank for making the same choice that our bishops have made (although I am happy to excoriate our bishops for making it).

I interpret the document as a political statement, not a moral one.

Ender

 

[SoCalRC]

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.

Actually, that part is consistant with the Doctrinal Note a nd various Papal directives (ex. CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI) and the Pastoral Constitution from the Second Vatican Council.

It is the inalienable rights of the human person, not just abortion, that is a moral imperitive that cannot be abridged.

I actually find the bishop’s document troubling as well, since I cannot reconcile it with the Doctrinal Note. The Bishops represent the Magisterium only when teaching in communion with the Pope. I am not saying that they are not, but I am going to have to dig deeper to reconcile two seemingly very different points of view.

What I find interesting is that you object to the document (presumably having rejected it as a legitimate reflection of Church Doctrine), but then present it anyway. Do you also consider Rome’s Doctrinal Note a ‘terrible document’?

 

[SoCalRC]

I interpret the document as a political statement, not a moral one.

Then why did you use it to “refute” a Doctrinal Note on the subject from the Vatican?

Would it not be better to attempt to justify Vern’s position with something you accept as legitimate? The Doctrinal Note (which is at least from Rome), the Catechism, Ecumenical documents, etc.

 

[SoCalRC]

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.”

How is that logical? Why does the Church have to put pragmatic faith in earthly political power? The Church has supported minority political activity in the past, against enormous odds.

The document is about voting one’s faith, not abandoning one’s faith the least while meetingsone’s desire to ‘win’.

Are you literally saying that it is a given that we must trust in the pragmatic activities of men over the power of God?

 

[vern_humphrey]

“albiet imperfect”

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

No, they don’t mean what you think they mean.

 

[vern_humphrey]

How is that logical? Why does the Church have to put pragmatic faith in earthly political power? The Church has supported minority political activity in the past, against enormous odds.

The document is about voting one’s faith, not abandoning one’s faith the least while meetingsone’s desire to ‘win’.

Are you literally saying that it is a given that we must trust in the pragmatic activities of men over the power of God?

Are you saying the Church doesn’t care how we vote?

Are you saying the Church doesn’t call upon us to work for Social Justice?

 

[SoCalRC]

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?

What is the goal? I’d say ‘fewer abortions’.

Putting canidates ‘who want’ in charge has produced no progress towards that goal. In fact, the measurable data points in the wrong direction (abortions fell must under Clinton since Roe).

Also, what if the candidate promotes death in other ways, like euthanasia and the death penalty?

I think the answer is to more fully embrace the faith. Compromise on intrinsic evil just rewards evil. But my approach, because it ignores ‘practical’ concerns, assumes that God, not men, is the source of good and true power. A pretty big leap of faith.

 

[SoCalRC]

Are you saying the Church doesn’t care how we vote?

Are you saying the Church doesn’t call upon us to work for Social Justice?

The Bishop’s statement notwithstanding, the overwhelming body of documentation seems to state that it is more important that we vote morally than successfully.

Think of abortion, we teach that two deaths are better than one murder. In that instance, we are asking a mother to sacrifice her life, a precious gift for God, to follow what is right.

But you seem to consider it inconceivable to give up pragmatic political power for the sake of voting justly.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

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.”

LOL…fat chance. they won’t agree with you there, since the Vatican has not spoken “infallibly” and still allows them to use the death penalty and still adher to this vile war. No, they cafeteria the heck out of those two things. Knowing what the Vatican believes is parsed to what the Vatican demands they believe. The clear import of what is being said is of no consequence, they can still wiggle out of it and salute the executioner and the warmongers.

 

[vern_humphrey]

What is the goal? I’d say ‘fewer abortions’.

Putting canidates ‘who want’ in charge has produced no progress towards that goal. In fact, the measurable data points in the wrong direction (abortions fell must under Clinton since Roe).

So the candidate must be perfect, or it is immoral to vote for him? Unless, of course, he is pro-abortion, but “right” on other issues?

Also, what if the candidate promotes death in other ways, like euthanasia and the death penalty?

Who is this candidate who opposed abortion but supports euthanasia? Give us a name!

One cannot morally vote for a candidate who supports euthanasia. The death penalty is a matter for prudential judgement.

I think the answer is to more fully embrace the faith. Compromise on intrinsic evil just rewards evil. But my approach, because it ignores ‘practical’ concerns, assumes that God, not men, is the source of good and true power. A pretty big leap of faith.

Acutally, your approach pretty much excludes God, and substitutes your own ideas.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

No, they don’t mean what you think they mean.

Funny but you never define what you mean do you? Just make fun of everyone else with what you think of as cute little quips that provide no evidence but sure sound good at least to you. You call it argument. Others here call it, childish rant. Vern, if you have a position, back it up once in a while at least. Stop with the one-liners who impress no one but those who agree with you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

LOL…fat chance. they won’t agree with you there, since the Vatican has not spoken “infallibly” and still allows them to use the death penalty and still adher to this vile war. No, they cafeteria the heck out of those two things. Knowing what the Vatican believes is parsed to what the Vatican demands they believe. The clear import of what is being said is of no consequence, they can still wiggle out of it and salute the executioner and the warmongers.

Do you win many cases using ad hominem like that, counselor?

 

[SoCalRC]

No, they don’t mean what you think they mean.

I think that they mean that you argue:

Abortion trumps everything else, even euthanasia and stem cell research.

In fact, I believe you think that abortion is SO important, that it is morally imperitive for you to compromise on it to demonstrate your committment to the principle.

I find both these illogical. If I elevate abortion over other life, I am attacking the underlying “any stage” “any condition” Catholic belief that makes abortion critically important to us in the first place.

Likewise, I believe that the only principles I can truly claim to hold dear are the ones that I will stand up for when they cost me something. If I won’t trade political effectiveness for fully protecting the unborn, clearly I do not hold the latter that dearly, no matter what I say to the contrary.

It is important to me to be able to say, I hold abortion as a moral absolute. Your position, that it is somewhat absolute - except for the point you decide it is prudent to compromise on it, does not match the absolute certainty of my moral conscience.

So the candidate must be perfect, or it is immoral to vote for him? Unless, of course, he is pro-abortion, but “right” on other issues?

I’m not going to run in circles with this bogus argument again. I support fully voting the faith, along the lines of the Doctrinal Note from Rome.

The Bishop’s seem to suggest that pro-choice voting, of all types (including yours) may be licit. As I said above, I will have to study this further.

Equating “follow the church” and “don’t compromise on intrinsic evil” with being ‘pro abortion’ is dishonest and I have no idea why you persist in repeating it. After all, I’ve quoted Rome saying the same thing and it would be ludicrous to accuse the Pope of being pro abortion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Funny but you never define what you mean do you?

I thought I made it perfectly clear – what could be more clear than this:

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.

Just make fun of everyone else with what you think of as cute little quips that provide no evidence but sure sound good at least to you. You call it argument. Others here call it, childish rant.

It takes one to know one.

Vern, if you have a position, back it up once in a while at least. Stop with the one-liners who impress no one but those who agree with you.

I have backed up my position over and over – as for the one-liners, you must remember who I am debating with.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I think that they mean that you argue:

Abortion trumps everything else, even euthanasia and stem cell research.

Is that what you believe?

I
In fact, I believe you think that abortion is SO important, that it is morally imperitive for you to compromise on it to demonstrate your committment to the principle.

Would it be fair for me to reply that I believe you think perfection is SO important, that it is morally imperitive for you to vote only for perfect candidates?

I believe that if I can save even one child, it is morally imperative that I do so, even if I cannot save them all.

I
I find both these illogical. If I elevate abortion over other life, I am attacking the underlying “any stage” “any condition” Catholic belief that makes abortion critically important to us in the first place.

That’s what **you **believe – not what the Church teaches.

I
Likewise, I believe that the only principles I can truly claim to hold dear are the ones that I will stand up for when they cost me something. If I won’t trade political effectiveness for fully protecting the unborn, clearly I do not hold the latter that dearly, no matter what I say to the contrary.

And you’re willing to trade increased abortion for being able to say, “Well, at least I stood up for my principles?”

I
It is important to me to be able to say, I hold abortion as a moral absolute. Your position, that it is somewhat absolute - except for the point you decide it is prudent to compromise on it, does not match the absolute certainty of my moral conscience.

There’s that word again.

I
I’m not going to run in circles with this bogus argument again. I support fully voting the faith, along the lines of the Doctrinal Note from Rome.

In other words, if you can find something that sort of looks like justifying voting for a pro-abortion politician, that’s good enough?

I
The Bishop’s seem to suggest that pro-choice voting, of all types (including yours) may be licit. As I said above, I will have to study this further.

Equating “follow the church” and “don’t compromise on intrinsic evil” with being ‘pro abortion’ is dishonest and I have no idea why you persist in repeating it. After all, I’ve quoted Rome saying the same thing and it would be ludicrous to accuse the Pope of being pro abortion.

Accusing me of “compromising” is dishonest and I have no idea why you persist in repeating it. After all, I’ve quoted the Catechism on the same thing and it would be ludicrous to accuse the Pope of being pro abortion.

 

[mapleoak]

Actually, Vern has suggested that I am obligated to vote for a candidate who supports abortion in cases of rape and incest,

Please show where. Please do!

 

[Super_Grover]

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?

vz71:

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.

Two very direct and simple questions to which you will not likely receive direct and simple answers from the two here who are torturing Church teaching for reasons about which one could only speculate.

The USCCB guide would, of course, presuppose the common reality of our two-party system. Take this example: Candidate A is pro-choice across the board, and even opposes any laws to protect infants who emerge alive from the womb in a “botched” abortion. Candidate B opposes abortion in more than 99% of all cases, but supports abortion if the pregnancy was the result of rape. Two voters walk into the polling station, you as a pro-life Catholic, and Sally as a pro-choice whatever.

SoCalRC would have you, a pro-lifer, FAIL to vote for the candidate who would save more lives if elected and throw your vote to Candidate C (a third party Constitutionalist or the crank down the street who somehow got on the ballot or who knows what) while Sally WILL vote for the consistently pro-choice candidate.

SoCalRC’s method would net 1 vote for Candidate A (the candidate who supports all abortions and even infanticide), 0 votes for Candidate B (the imperfect candidate who opposes more than 99% of all abortions), and 1 vote for the third party candidate (who will never attain office to implement his pro-life standards anyway).

Writ large, Candidate A wins and many more babies die. That is the result of SoCalRC’s position that is either highly confused or deliberately misleading. No one should pretend that the Church has established a system that would cause the death of greater numbers of innocents so that we can feel secure in some perverse sense of consistency.

Another atrocious result is found in SoCalRC’s arguments that attempt to level abortion and euthanasia to the status of other issues. If Candidate A is pro-abortion and pro-infanticide (as offered above), is “right to die”, but supports pulling troops out of a combat zone, opposes the death penalty, is better about eliminating land mines, etc., while Candidate B opposes 99% of all abortions, but is not good on these other issues, the Church teaching is that the taking of innocent life is NOT one issue among many and must ALWAYS be opposed. SoCalRC’s teaching is that it’s not that simple, it’s much fuzzier, and there are these documents, see, and it’s a tapestry, and you have to be consistent, and maybe you don’t vote for the Candidate B, otherwise you are violating Mother Church, so sayeth SoCalRC. SoCalRC’s result, more innocents die.

The illogical end results of SoCalRC’s reasonings are not the only weakness. Another weakness is the highly misleading use of SoCalRC’s source material. Due to word limit, I’ll address some of that in the next post.

In the meantime, I will politely ask that my words not be twisted and taken out of context, that source material not be placed in dubious context, and that people consider the effect of arguments that, if accepted, would lead to the deaths of more innocents.

 

[Super_Grover]

Are SoCalRC’s posts deliberately misleading?

It’s hard to see otherwise. I go back to post #21 where he replied to a post that I made. He called it “dangerous” and “moral relativism” to point out the murders of 1.31 million babies as opposed to 42 convicts put to death. Now, he of course divorced the illustration of these numbers from the context that followed. One such point of context being the distinction that the Church recognizes but SoCalRC conspicuously failed to recognize – the INNOCENT life taken by abortion. Then he had the audacity to quote a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, found here vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html
and this time, it wasn’t just some poster that he took out of context, it was the Church.
SoCalRC provided a paragraph and presented in such a way as to appear consistent with his subtext that all life issues are essentially on a par with one another. The paragraph cited by SoCalRC reiterated the commonly expressed sentiment that we cannot simply focus on one life issue to the disregard other life issues and we cannot vote for a program or law that violates fundamental contents of faith and morals. Thus safely divorced from any other context, SoCalRC merrily plunges ahead with the parade of horribles that “my” reasoning (after falsely turning my actual reasoning into a straw man) would envision.

So, I read the document, and the paragraph he quoted, and learned that the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH would have gutted SoCalRC’s argument. Because it is this paragraph that draws the very distinction mention about life issues that “do not admit of exception.” This paragraph specifically lists abortion and euthanasia and makes no mention of capital punishment.

Then SoCalRC posted a quote from John Paul II’s CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI to further support his argument about my allegedly inappropriate use of number of people dead and distinction regarding the innocent. In this case, I did not need to wait until the next paragraph to find his flawed use of the quote, I found it in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE. Here is the quote from Vatican II that SoCalRC omitted: “The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: ‘All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator’”
Conspicuously missing in this quote, indeed in the entire document, is any reference to capital punishment. I reiterate, of all the many and diverse issues listed, capital punishment is not mentioned, which neatly places SoCalRC’s misleading omission in context.

Folks, if you cannot understand the convoluted posts of SoCalRC, it is not because he is brilliant and you are incapable of comprehension of his works – it is because his posts are incomprehensible, either due to confusion or design. If he were an attorney submitting a brief, he’d be sanctioned by the court for selectively citing authority in such a misleading way.

These propositions stand:

1. One must consider all life issues in the context of what the Church offers on these issues.
2. Having thus considered these issues, one may exercise one’s individual conscience and find particular (albeit quite rare) instances in which one supports the imposition of capital punishment.
3. The taking of innocent life, such as by abortion and euthanasia, is not just one issue among many life issues, and must always be opposed.

And yes, this means that concerns about abortion and euthanasia “do not admit of exception”, not even the exception of SoCalRC’s twisted views on “consistency.” And no, the Church does not say that you are a purveyor of evil who “contributes to the culture of death” if you exercise your conscience in a manner that the Church allows – that would make the Church an accomplice in evil.

This is clear, this is simple, this is the Church’s teaching. It is abominable to try to twist these teachings.

You may have a strong desire to vote for a particular candidate because he or she supports many of your issues but strongly supports abortion. Maybe you felt that you could not because of Church teachings, but now believe that you have found some loophole here with SoCalRC’s “learned” posts. Rather than rely on the this proven dubious fellow, go to other sites such as Priests For Life. www.priestsforlife.org

 

[Ridgerunner]

Super Grover:

Brilliant post! Pulls good sense out of this cat’s cradle.

Perhaps you can help me out here.

I am aware that the Church does not, and has never, focused only on prevention as an adequate foundational basis for capital punishment. Nevertheless, that particular criterion is the one upon which I focused my earlier posts. If it was answered by anyone, I didn’t see it.

JPII’s statement concerning capital punishment; that the danger to others presented by certain murderers is, in modern society “virtually nonexistent”. That’s clearly not true, factually, as a substantial number of murders, rapes, maimings, etc are committed by prisoners. He had to know that. Therefore, there does seem to be something missing from the Pope’s proposition. What is it?

I have sometimes thought his was an urging toward an ultimate goal which assumed certain mesne goals which he did not name, e.g., greater prison security, which he held as more proximate goals; not advocating an outright and immediate termination of all executions, no matter what.

Perhaps you would care to address the question.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Both of those statements are suspect and neither is of primary importance in determining whether capital punishment should be applied. The primary goal of all punishment is to redress the wrong caused by the crime. It is justice that requires a punishment commensurate with the severity of the crime. The protection of society, deterrence, and rehabilitation are legitimate purposes of punishment but individually or together they do not outweigh the demand of justice.
The issue of justice (as well as deterrence and rehabilitation) was not addressed in JPII’s rejection of capital punishment. This is an omission that at some point will have to be addressed. The Church for its first 1995 years taught that capital punishment was an appropriate punishment and I am unpersuaded that that position was in error.

Ender

In my question, put to Super Grover, I was not ignoring the instructive post by Ender, or in any manner criticizing Ender. Still, I do think Ender left my particular question up in the air. Possibly Ender’s is the only answer one can be confident in making. But even if Super Grover or Ender or anyone else who doesn’t just want to make a political football out of it can fill it in with a reasoned conclusion, I would be grateful to see it.

I’m not arguing. I really am asking.