Defining 'proportionate reasons'

[Ender]

They are bishops. Authority is inherent in their position. I was clear that my post was my opinion, so I was “speaking for myself”. I know human nature enough to know that people will only tend to listen to what they want anyway, as I made clear in my earlier post, and you demonstrated in yours. You keep saying how they have no authority in this matter and we are free to ignore them. I’ll keep encouraging others not to start down this path, but rather to listen and learn from their shepherds.

You have misunderstood what I said. I never claimed that bishops have no teaching authority; that would be absurd. I have claimed two things: that bishops conferences have no teaching authority and that we are not obliged to assent to the prudential opinions of bishops (or even of popes).

When a bishop speaks out on faith or morals he is speaking for the Church, but when he speaks out on political issues he is speaking for himself. We are obliged to assent in the former case but we certainly have no such obligations in the latter.

The Faithful Citizenship document put out by the USCCB was not binding because the USCCB has no teaching authority. I once had a bishop claim that we were morally obligated to support an increase in the minimum wage. That statement too carried no obligation to assent because, despite his assertion, it was about the application of a moral objective and it is the objective which carries the obligation, not any particular solution. The ends define our moral obligation; the means (normally) involve only our prudential judgments.

Ender

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s not my
Your example and conclusion are errant because it relies on a deliberate misrepresentation of the Church teaching on the application of the death penalty…

Which part is wrong:

1. Abortion is a form of murder?
2. The death penalty is permitted if the state so chooses to use it?
3. Murder is a crime that is generally considered to be one for which the death penalty may apply?

 

[1holycatholic]

Which part is wrong:

1. Abortion is a form of murder?
2. The death penalty is permitted if the state so chooses to use it?
3. Murder is a crime that is generally considered to be one for which the death penalty may apply?

1. The mandatory application of the death penalty to a particular crime.

Your scenario does not involve the prudential application of the death penalty.

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes.

Electability would not be a proportionate reason in and of itself. A candidate who will certainly not be elected because they are one hundred years old can not minimize the damage due to abortion so proportionate reason is moot.

 

[Ender]

Electability would not be a proportionate reason in and of itself. A candidate who will certainly not be elected because they are one hundred years old can not minimize the damage due to abortion so proportionate reason is moot.

Candidate D supports abortion.
Candidate R opposes abortion except in cases of incest, rape, and the life of the mother.
Candidate TP opposes abortion in all cases.

It would be a proportionate reason to vote for R over TP if there was virtually no chance that TP would be elected.

Ender

 

[1holycatholic]

Candidate D supports abortion.
Candidate R opposes abortion except in cases of incest, rape, and the life of the mother.
Candidate TP opposes abortion in all cases.

It would be a proportionate reason to vote for R over TP if there was virtually no chance that TP would be elected.

Ender

We are saying the same thing.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

1. The mandatory application of the death penalty to a particular crime.

Your scenario does not involve the prudential application of the death penalty.

The prudential application of the death penalty is exactly what my scenario is about. I didn’t say it was mandatory. I just said that it was allowed by the Church.

The vote that I spoke of is mandatory not because it forces the death penalty but just because it is the choice that favors the least number of abortions, which I thought you said was mandatory in the absence of a proportional reason to vote for the choice that results in more abortions.

 

[1holycatholic]

The prudential application of the death penalty is exactly what my scenario is about. I didn’t say it was mandatory. I just said that it was allowed by the Church.

The Church does not forbid recourse to the death penalty in all cases. You stated the penalty for abortion was the death penalty - not the when we feel like it death penalty. The Church’s position that the death penalty is sometimes permissible is not the same thing as your criteria for it’s application.

The vote that I spoke of is mandatory not because it forces the death penalty but just because it is the choice that favors the least number of abortions, which I thought you said was mandatory in the absence of a proportional reason to vote for the choice that results in more abortions.

Your scenario forces the unjust application of the death penalty. Try again with an even more absurd scenario, you still aren’t going to negate Church moral teaching.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You stated the penalty for abortion was the death penalty - not the when we feel like it death penalty.

No I didn’t. I stated that that was the position of candidate #2 in the scenario. I don’t have to agree with that candidate’s opinion about the death penalty if I am voting for him only because he will make for fewer abortions.

Your scenario forces the unjust application of the death penalty.

Why is the death penalty for murder unjust? Unless you want to claim that abortion is not murder?

Why don’t you just admit that it is licit to vote for candidate #1 in the scenario I gave?

 

[1holycatholic]

No I didn’t. I stated that that was the position of candidate #2 in the scenario. I don’t have to agree with that candidate’s opinion about the death penalty if I am voting for him only because he will make for fewer abortions.

Candidate one effectively does nothing to stop abortion.

Candidate two reduces the number of abortions with the unjust application of the death penalty. Voting for this candidate because of their position of unjust application of the death penalty entails formal cooperation with evil.

Why is the death penalty for murder unjust? Unless you want to claim that abortion is not murder?

I didn’t say it was necessarily unjust, I said the application you presented was unjust.

Why don’t you just admit that it is licit to vote for candidate #1 in the scenario I gave?

You’ve given two candidates that are non-starters.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Candidate one effectively does nothing to stop abortion.

His position does more than many politicians today who favor continued complete legalization. In the absence of a better candidate, why wouldn’t you want to vote for him?

Candidate two reduces the number of abortions with the unjust application of the death penalty.

You still have not shown how this candidate’s position is unjust, aside from prudential judgment where some can consider it just and other consider it unjust. Is it necessarily unjust to apply the death penalty to someone kills a police officer? Is the baby’s life of less value than the police officer that the Church could not possibly allow the death penalty for abortion?

I didn’t say it was necessarily unjust, I said the application you presented was unjust.

Do you mean “unjust” in your personal opinion or “unjust” as a consequence of binding Church teaching? If you meant it in your opinion, then this opinion of yours cannot be proportionate to the murder to 1000’s of babies, and you would have to hold you nose and vote for #2. If you meant it as a consequence of Church teaching, then I would like to see which Church teaching says that the death penalty for abortion is necessarily unjust.

I would not ask all these questions if you would just say that it is licit to vote for #1.

 

[1holycatholic]

Do you mean “unjust” in your personal opinion or “unjust” as a consequence of binding Church teaching? If you meant it in your opinion, then this opinion of yours cannot be proportionate to the murder to 1000’s of babies, and you would have to hold you nose and vote for #2. If you meant it as a consequence of Church teaching, then I would like to see which Church teaching says that the death penalty for abortion is necessarily unjust.

It’s an unjust application per binding Church teaching. cf. CCC & Evangelium Vitae

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s an unjust application per binding Church teaching. cf. CCC & Evangelium Vitae

Which paragraph of CCC says that the death penalty for abortion can never be justified? Do you mean 2267?

 

[1holycatholic]

Which paragraph of CCC says that the death penalty for abortion can never be justified? Do you mean 2267?

Feel free to start, or join another thread about the just application of the death penalty. I’m not going down that rabbit hole.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Feel free to start, or join another thread about the just application of the death penalty. I’m not going down that rabbit hole.

I believe you started down that hole by claiming that my scenario involved an unjust application of the death penalty. So can you answer my original question without the detour: Is it licit to vote for candiate #1?

 

[1holycatholic]

I believe you started down that hole by claiming that my scenario involved an unjust application of the death penalty. So can you answer my original question without the detour: Is it licit to vote for candiate #1?

You’re the one proposing the unjust application of the death penalty.

It is not licit to vote for candidate two.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You’re the one proposing the unjust application of the death penalty…

I don’t think the Church says it is an unjust application, but since you refuse to support your contention that it is unjust, I just have your word that it is unjust.

Let me put all my cards on the table. The point of my scenario is to show that it is licit in some cases to vote for a candidate with a weaker position on abortion (candidate #1). You seem to agree with that, right?

 

[1holycatholic]

I don’t think the Church says it is an unjust application, but since you refuse to support your contention that it is unjust, I just have your word that it is unjust.

I don’t have to support the contention, you’ve posited a blanket application of the death penalty which is prima facie contrary to the CCC on multiple points.

Let me put all my cards on the table. The point of my scenario is to show that it is licit in some cases to vote for a candidate with a weaker position on abortion (candidate #1). You seem to agree with that, right?

There are only two candidates in your scenario and you can’t vote for candidate two. That doesn’t leave many candidates, does it?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I don’t have to support the contention, you’ve posited a blanket application of the death penalty which is prima facie contrary to the CCC on multiple points.

No, I haven’t posited a blanket application of the death penalty. In fact, if it bothers you that much I can clarify candidate #2’s position by saying that he favors making the death penalty available in the case of abortion, to be applied at the discretion of the judge or jury. Now it is definitely not a blanket application. It is only an available option that can be applied on a case by case basis, if #2’s law is passed. Now is it licit to vote for #2?

 

[1holycatholic]

No, I haven’t posited a blanket application of the death penalty. In fact, if it bothers you that much I can clarify candidate #2’s position by saying that he favors making the death penalty available in the case of abortion, to be applied at the discretion of the judge or jury. Now it is definitely not a blanket application. It is only an available option that can be applied on a case by case basis, if #2’s law is passed. Now is it licit to vote for #2?

It’s always at the discretion of a judge or jury. You haven’t changed anything.