Disturbed at this Incorrect Answer to a Question on Catholic Voting

[fix]

I am a fan of Catholic Answers. And almost all the time I find the treatment of hard questions - or any questions, really - in the Ask an Apologist Forum to be refreshing and responsible.

But I’m disturbed at this incorrect response given by an official Catholic apologist for all the world to see. It’s a scandal and a disservice to potentially lead someone astray about Catholic teachings on morality.

Specifically, the answer states without any clarification that it is “absolutely” right to state that a Catholic cannot “vote for a candidate advocating intrinsic evil … such as homosexuality, abortion, euthenasia.”

But I’m really disturbed by the fact that, well, that’s a falsehood. Pope Benedict XVI, while still Cardinal Ratzinger and the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, explained:

He says what’s really a no-brainer to anyone who has a clue about the standard and accepted Catholic moral principle of double effect: namely, that as long as a person is voting for such a candidate in spite of his or her support for intrinsic evil, said voter is engaging only in remote material cooperation with evil rather than more direct material cooperation or formal cooperation with evil, and that voting this way can therefore be justified in certain circumstances, the determining of which is a matter for prudential judgment.

Why, then, do otherwise solid Catholic organizations like Catholic Answers feel the need to communicate outright falsehoods and, in effect, deceive people?

PLEASE NOTE, I am well aware that some ideologue numbskulls with slavish and merely instinctive devotion to the Democratic Party in the United States use the above prinicples to justify their morally nebulous habit of consistently voting for pro-abortion politicians like President Obama, et al. I AM NOT ONE OF THEM. Do NOT accuse my post here of being a smokescreen for justifying a vote for Obama or his allies. IT IS NOT.

I did not vote for Obama in 2008, I voted for McCain. And I’m voting for Romney this time around, and I certainly acknowledge the rather obvious fact that in most cases, there really isn’t proportionate reason to justify voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil like abortion.

So if all you have to contribute to the discussion is the equally slavish, Republican-leaning, false dichotomy-pushing, drone-like, reactionary impulse to say, “Grrrrr STOP SAYING IT’S OK 4 PEEPUL 2 VOTE 4 DIRTY BABY-KILLING SOCIALISTS,” then just please go away now.

Let me repeat this so that no one has any excuse to derail this thread with unfounded accusations: I HAVE NOT and WILL NOT vote for Obama. I DO NOT SUPPORT HIM. If I have my way, the term he is finishing will be his last. NOR DO I BELIEVE THERE ARE PROPORTIONATE REASONS THAT JUSTIFY VOTING FOR HIM.

Got it? Good.

Now that that’s out of the way, what I really do want to hear about, and don’t understand, and am disturbed by, is why otherwise accurate Catholic sources like Catholic Answers feel the need to communicate falsehoods about this matter. Does the mere awareness that many lax Catholics are ideologically bankrupt and desensitized to the absolutely critical importance of violations of the dignity of human life really justify lying to people?

Why is politics the only area this happens? Shouldn’t we put the truth before all practical considerations, even if we know people will deliberately twist our words to make morally dubious voting choices?

I will close by offering this fine reflection by Catholic blogger Mark Shea:

ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-reader-asks-about-the-act-of-voting

He refuses to vote for a candidate who espouses approval of any intrinsic evil and thus ends up voting third-party most of the time. In this article and in the comments he exposes the absurdity of the charge against him that his actions constitute tacit support for President Obama and his allies. I wish more Catholics thought with his clarity, nuance, and brutal honesty.

i*t is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. *

You need proportionate reasons. Those reasons are not simply subjective.

 

[Contarini]

I looked up what the Bishop of Baltimore said, and if I knew how to post a link I would. If you google ‘Bishop of Baltimore on voting’ it is easy to find.

He was talking specifically about this election in November. What he said was, “The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances? If that’s the case, a catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn’t be voting for such a person.”

Since the Bishop is talking about this election were you have a candidate who is unashamedly for intrinsic evils and one who at least claims to be pro-life and repentant of his past stands on abortion, I believe both the Bishop and Father Serpa are correct and in line with Church teaching on this subject.

It’s one thing to say: “I agree with their judgment that proportionate reasons are not present here.” It’s another to say, “it is always wrong to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil.” This latter statement is clearly false, and this is the statement Fr. Serpa apparently made. It also seems to be implied in the bishop of Baltimore’s statement.

This article by Dave Cloutier is helpful (as are other articles on that site) in pointing out that, in Cloutier’s words, " “intrinsic” is not a word that denotes gravity." There can be proportionate reasons that don’t involve an “intrinsic evil,” but do involve grave evil. So, for instance, it is not intrinsically wrong to go to war. But if I believe that one candidate will pursue policies toward Iran (say) that will make a devastating and unnecessary war more likely, while another will pursue more reasonable ones, that’s a potential proportionate reason, even if it doesn’t involve intrinsic evil (even if, for instance, the warmongering candidate did not endorse the deliberate killing of civilians).

In Romney’s case, the moment when I ruled him out as a morally legitimate candidate was the moment in 2008 when he refused to take any position on methods of “enhanced interrogation.” I have seen no reason to revise my judgment–the amoral pragmatism he displayed on that occasion has been further in evidence again and again. It seems to me that this is a proportionate reason–when you have a candidate who simply refuses to take a moral stand with regard to torture (including refusing to define what torture is, and hence what methods he would refuse to endorse as a matter of principle), that is not a candidate you want in charge of the considerable coercive resources of the American government.

Edwin

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

It’s one thing to say: “I agree with their judgment that proportionate reasons are not present here.” It’s another to say, “it is always wrong to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil.” This latter statement is clearly false, and this is the statement Fr. Serpa apparently made. It also seems to be implied in the bishop of Baltimore’s statement.

This article by Dave Cloutier is helpful (as are other articles on that site) in pointing out that, in Cloutier’s words, " “intrinsic” is not a word that denotes gravity." There can be proportionate reasons that don’t involve an “intrinsic evil,” but do involve grave evil. So, for instance, it is not intrinsically wrong to go to war. But if I believe that one candidate will pursue policies toward Iran (say) that will make a devastating and unnecessary war more likely, while another will pursue more reasonable ones, that’s a potential proportionate reason, even if it doesn’t involve intrinsic evil (even if, for instance, the warmongering candidate did not endorse the deliberate killing of civilians).

Exactly. For some reason, the whole “here are the five non-negotiables” method of Catholic voting always seems to miss this fact: intrinsic and grave are different things. There are grave evils - like war - that are not intrinsic evils.

This is the fact that I find those voting guides based on “the five non-negotiables” often fail to mention. It is an even bigger flaw in them than the mere fact that they’re incomplete: at least during the last election cycle, torture/“enhanced interrogation techniques” were a real, substantive issue, and according to the Catholic Church, torture is an intrinsic evil (CCC 2297). So four years ago, those guides really should have been revised to include six “non-negotiables.”

Anyway, concerning your main point, you really hit the nail on the head: an evil being intrinsic or extrinsic/relative does not in and of itself constitute a measure of its gravity as compared to other evils.

Imagine, for instance, you had two candidates for a significant higher office: both are pro-life. Candidate A also opposes “gay marriage” but intends to enter or exacerbate war. Candidate B supports “gay marriage” but opposes that war.

In this hypothetical, Candidate B supports an “intrinsic evil,” while Candidate A does not. But I would still vote for Candidate B in this scenario, because the evil Candidate A supports is more grave than the evil Candidate B supports, even though the latter’s chosen evil happens to be intrinsic.

In Romney’s case, the moment when I ruled him out as a morally legitimate candidate was the moment in 2008 when he refused to take any position on methods of “enhanced interrogation.” I have seen no reason to revise my judgment–the amoral pragmatism he displayed on that occasion has been further in evidence again and again. It seems to me that this is a proportionate reason–when you have a candidate who simply refuses to take a moral stand with regard to torture (including refusing to define what torture is, and hence what methods he would refuse to endorse as a matter of principle), that is not a candidate you want in charge of the considerable coercive resources of the American government.

I disagree only because I don’t trust Obama on this issue, either. Support for Big American Power and all it entails - even torturing our prisoners - is a staple of those who have constantly expanded federal (especially executive) power and who have an almost idolatrous regard for the importance of government (whether concerning fiscal issues or foreign policy issues). While you have some American politicians - like Ron Paul - who genuinely seem to care about Constitutional liberties and human rights, most, I think, just want to see their people accumulate and retain More Power. For instance, the NDAA bill/budget/whatever it was that passed late last year had strong bipartisan support, even though one of its provisions may seriously empower the federal government to detain American civilians without trial, legal recourse, or serious evidence.

From what I can tell, both major parties at the higher levels of government support this egregious power-grabbing, with only the few supposedly “crazy” Ron Paul types actually advocating a strict interpretation of everyone’s Constitutional liberties. While I don’t agree with someone like Paul on everything, particularly fiscal matters, I definitely feel that concerning war, torture, or anything else that involves state power, the GOP and the Democrats are equally nasty.

 

[Contarini]

I disagree only because I don’t trust Obama on this issue, either.

Well, I don’t much either. The drone attacks are appalling, and Rachel Maddow (not a source particularly prone to anti-Obama bias) blames him primarily for them.

On torture his position is definitely preferable to Romney’s, I think.

But as I’ve said many times, if I could vote I don’t think I would vote for either of them this time around. Last time, even though I liked Obama better than I do now, I think I would have voted for McCain, with whom I disagreed on a lot of war-related issues but who took a lot of positions I respected and has a pretty consistent prolife record.

Edwin

 

[10gr8kids]

It’s one thing to say: “I agree with their judgment that proportionate reasons are not present here.” It’s another to say, “it is always wrong to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil.” This latter statement is clearly false, and this is the statement Fr. Serpa apparently made. Edwin

Fr Serpa’s reply was:
“Yes, he is absolutely correct. Morality matters because God’s will matters.”

As you see he did not say it is always wrong to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil. Also, I did not think the Bishops statement implied this either, he was clearly speaking about our choices in this election and not about every situation that may occur.

 

[underacloud]

By request, here are the two other threads I referenced earlier:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=701428

In this one he tells the effeminate male to learn how to act more male from other men. I’d be surprised if that’s official church teaching in any way but Fr. Serpa does not specify what’s teaching and what’s his own opinion. Furthermore the OP does not elaborate on what effeminate behavior he’s referring too so we don’t know if it’s mild or something way off the deep end. For example, I’m a father who is often seen in public pushing my son in a stroller, hugging and kissing him, and performing other parenting duties traditionally performed by mothers. Nobody but a very small number of traditional men ever tease me about it, let alone tell me I need to change. On the other hand, if I did all of the above wearing high heels, I’d be properly advised that I’m not really being who I am but trying too hard to get attention.

Yes, I agree that it is vague what effeminate behaviour actually entails. I presume speech and mannerisms that may lead others to assume that the person is openly gay, and thereby in conflict with the Church? Anyway, Fr Serpa does say “I suggest…” indicating that it may be his opinion rather than official teaching, and offers for the poster to PM him to discuss further, as he often does.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=649775

These are the parents wondering if they should cut off their son for renting from a gay couple. The answer is very short, saying “their stance is consistent with Church teaching”. I felt the alternative stance was also consistent with Church teaching as the son is mainly performing a business transaction by renting a room. If we screen all land lords for sinful behavior, we wouldn’t be able to rent from anywhere! My objection is that the response implies that there is no other viable path that’s consistent with Church teaching. If I were the parents, I wouldn’t cut off my child over this and I wouldn’t feel I’ve violated the Church in that action.

He certainly doesn’t suggest cutting off their son; just not condoning this particular decision or helping him move.

Not sure if we’re getting off topic by discussing other posts but I do feel the critics of Fr. Serpa are being fair by focusing their objections on the responses themselves and not at Fr. Serpa. Should he ever see this, I hope he takes away first and foremost that we all greatly appreciate his work. Everything else is just discussion about a piece of the content.

I hope Fr Serpa may post here himself to clarify his position. As others have noted, his response may well be 100% correct, in line with Church teaching, based on the specific case the bishop was addressing. But like others, I found the question and response to be lacking context and open to misinterpretation.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Perhaps we have not actually clearly defined the issue.

(1) It seems to me the issue is NOT intrinsic evil but the LEGALISATION thereof.
(2) As far as I know there is no such thing as intrinsic evil, only ** intrinsically evil (human) acts**.
(3) Such philosophic/ethical acts are NOT necessarily the same as observable, behaviour/actions/procedures of the same name (e.g. an abortion).

I would not have a significant problem voting for someone precisely because they wanted to legalise prostitution - and I do not think Fr. would either as he would be standing in a very strong theological tradition.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Vote for any Catholic that supports abortion and be unrepentent for doing so and then die–do you know what happens?

You go to Hell because you have died in a state of mortal sin.

It really is that simple and that really is the truth no matter who likes it or not!

If every Catholic knew the truth of that fact we would not have abortion in our country.

 

[Ignatius]

Ignatius;9665865:

Actually, if you check the Catechism, you will find that a faithful Catholic cannot vote for a candidate advocating intrinsic evil such as homosexual activity, abortion, or euthenasia.

Provide a CCC number, please.
Edwin

No, Edwin, the best way to become informed about authentic Catholic Teaching is to do your own homework. Intrinsic Evil means that it is always and everywhere evil and cannot be supported in any way. Homosexual activity, abortion, euthenasia, etc. are devined as intrinsic evils multiple times, not only in the Catechism, but in Councils going back to the beginning of The Church as well as in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

 

[thewanderer]

No, Edwin, the best way to become informed about authentic Catholic Teaching is to do your own homework. Intrinsic Evil means that it is always and everywhere evil and cannot be supported in any way. Homosexual activity, abortion, euthenasia, etc. are devined as intrinsic evils multiple times, not only in the Catechism, but in Councils going back to the beginning of The Church as well as in Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Ignatius, may I suggest you do your own homework on the principle of double effect? I believe this will help clear up the issue for you.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No, Edwin, the best way to become informed about authentic Catholic Teaching is to do your own homework.

Ignatius I usually like the Buddhist “learn by getting off your bum” approach but on a Forum specifically called “Apologetics” I suggest it isn’t appropriate.
All the more so when something is being debated with an audience and is not a 1:1 student/teacher thing.
Apologetics is about helping others by providing others the reasons why we believe what we do.
When the point you make is not readily evident to other sincere and intelligent Catholics then the putting up of your unsourced “authority” for further discussion would seem all the more necessary.

So yes, I also am interested in you helping me along with Edwin in providing the CCC basis for the long bow that you are drawing.
And would you also include legalisation of Prostitution in that list?
If not, why not?

 

[steve_b]

I am a fan of Catholic Answers. And almost all the time I find the treatment of hard questions - or any questions, really - in the Ask an Apologist Forum to be refreshing and responsible.

But I’m disturbed at this incorrect response given by an official Catholic apologist for all the world to see. It’s a scandal and a disservice to potentially lead someone astray about Catholic teachings on morality.

Specifically, the answer states without any clarification that it is “absolutely” right to state that a Catholic cannot “vote for a candidate advocating intrinsic evil … such as homosexuality, abortion, euthenasia.”

But I’m really disturbed by the fact that, well, that’s a falsehood. Pope Benedict XVI, while still Cardinal Ratzinger and the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, explained:

He says what’s really a no-brainer to anyone who has a clue about the standard and accepted Catholic moral principle of double effect: namely, that as long as a person is voting for such a candidate in spite of his or her support for intrinsic evil, said voter is engaging only in remote material cooperation with evil rather than more direct material cooperation or formal cooperation with evil, and that voting this way can therefore be justified in certain circumstances, the determining of which is a matter for prudential judgment.

Why, then, do otherwise solid Catholic organizations like Catholic Answers feel the need to communicate outright falsehoods and, in effect, deceive people?

PLEASE NOTE, I am well aware that some ideologue numbskulls with slavish and merely instinctive devotion to the Democratic Party in the United States use the above prinicples to justify their morally nebulous habit of consistently voting for pro-abortion politicians like President Obama, et al. I AM NOT ONE OF THEM. Do NOT accuse my post here of being a smokescreen for justifying a vote for Obama or his allies. IT IS NOT.

I did not vote for Obama in 2008, I voted for McCain. And I’m voting for Romney this time around, and I certainly acknowledge the rather obvious fact that in most cases, there really isn’t proportionate reason to justify voting for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil like abortion.

So if all you have to contribute to the discussion is the equally slavish, Republican-leaning, false dichotomy-pushing, drone-like, reactionary impulse to say, “Grrrrr STOP SAYING IT’S OK 4 PEEPUL 2 VOTE 4 DIRTY BABY-KILLING SOCIALISTS,” then just please go away now.

Let me repeat this so that no one has any excuse to derail this thread with unfounded accusations: I HAVE NOT and WILL NOT vote for Obama. I DO NOT SUPPORT HIM. If I have my way, the term he is finishing will be his last. NOR DO I BELIEVE THERE ARE PROPORTIONATE REASONS THAT JUSTIFY VOTING FOR HIM.

Got it? Good.

Now that that’s out of the way, what I really do want to hear about, and don’t understand, and am disturbed by, is why otherwise accurate Catholic sources like Catholic Answers feel the need to communicate falsehoods about this matter. Does the mere awareness that many lax Catholics are ideologically bankrupt and desensitized to the absolutely critical importance of violations of the dignity of human life really justify lying to people?

Why is politics the only area this happens? Shouldn’t we put the truth before all practical considerations, even if we know people will deliberately twist our words to make morally dubious voting choices?

I will close by offering this fine reflection by Catholic blogger Mark Shea:

ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/a-reader-asks-about-the-act-of-voting

He refuses to vote for a candidate who espouses approval of any intrinsic evil and thus ends up voting third-party most of the time. In this article and in the comments he exposes the absurdity of the charge against him that his actions constitute tacit support for President Obama and his allies. I wish more Catholics thought with his clarity, nuance, and brutal honesty.

I haven’t read all the responses. If this has already been said just ignore this response.

Re: “double effect”, as you know, this idea can’t be treated as a soundbite. Depending on who defines what’s important in the double effect, and one’s motivations, I’m sure you will agree, in some people’s hands, it could in effect be disasterous. Some people can justify anything as long as a pet cow of theirs is spared

For example

I have Catholic friends who voted for Obama and will vote for him again, because he supports unions. My friends are retired, and they think their retirement income from all their union perks which is very lucrative, might be effected adversely if a Republican is elected.

it’s less important to them that

• Obama voted agaist the “born alive infant protection act” ergo in botched abortions the baby is not helped and just allowed to die.
• Obama and the Democratic party, have abortion rights as their platform at all stages of life. So what if 1.5 million children are legally murdered each and every year and have been for the last 40+ years in this country. Obama won’t do anything to curb this nor will his party. Since Presidents name Supreme Court judges, Fat chance he and his party will name a pro life judge to the court that might over turn this law.
• Obama under executive order, restored taxpayer funding of abortion to Mexico, to the tune of $500M /yr. How many millions of children did $2Billion of our tax payer dollars murder over the last 4 years in Mexico?This is a party vote, Democrats restore this funding when they are in office, Republicans take it away. This see saw policy began under Reagan. He took funding away as did each Republican after him, and each Democrat restored funding.

Given this scenerio, My friends are more concerned about their pensions. They hold them sacrosanct. That’s their most important issue. They focus on this like a lazer beam.

One can’t deny, This is “double effect” in action.

I would suggest that the following quote, depends on informed judgement. Otherwise, it could be used to justify in the minds of some, that are not informed properly, to vote for Hitler, Stalin etc etc thinking it’s okay…true?

“as long as a person is voting for such a candidate in spite of his or her support for intrinsic evil, said voter is engaging only in remote material cooperation with evil rather than more direct material cooperation or formal cooperation with evil, and that voting this way can therefore be justified in certain circumstances, the determining of which is a matter for prudential judgment.”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Where the statement is a lie is REMOTE material cooperation–it isn’t REMOTE it is direct and it is FORMAL.

Ask all the politically correct liberal abortionist murderers if someone could use the same double effect logic to vote for a candidate that supported slavery!

They would say that that would be wrong–well voting for a candidate that supports abortion is EVEN WORSE!

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Where the statement is a lie is REMOTE material cooperation–it isn’t REMOTE it is direct and it is FORMAL.

Ask all the politically correct liberal abortionist murderers if someone could use the same double effect logic to vote for a candidate that supported slavery!

Actually, I think it’s possible to find yourself in a scenario where that might be necessary. During the Civil War Lincoln, while not outright supporting slavery, allowed it in the border states even after the Emancipation Proclamation. His goal was to win the war; endiing slavery took a back seat.

Would I have voted for Lincoln instead of some third party anti-slavery candidate? Probably not. Lincoln was the best man for the job, and ultimately his plan won the war AND ended slavery in the long run. Double effect is still a good principle.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Where the statement is a lie is REMOTE material cooperation–it isn’t REMOTE it is direct and it is FORMAL.

Pfft. You make a statement like this, directly contradicting what then-Cardinal Ratzinger said, and literally without citing any sources, and you expect anyone to take your claim seriously?

It is formal cooperation with evil only if you vote for such a candidate because of their support for an intrinsic evil. If you vote in spite of their support for an intrinsic evil, it is remote material cooperation.

Ask all the politically correct liberal abortionist murderers if someone could use the same double effect logic to vote for a candidate that supported slavery!

They would say that that would be wrong–well voting for a candidate that supports abortion is EVEN WORSE!

And they would be wrong. It is possible that double effect could indeed have justified voting for a pro-slavery candidate.

Would it actually have done so? No, I don’t think so. The last condition of double effect, the subjective one, is that you must have a proportionately grave reason to permit the evil you foresee, and I agree with you that I can’t see what proportionate reason would have justified voting for a pro-slavery candidate.

Nor can I see, in our present context, what would justify voting for a pro-abortion candidate. So I agree with you de facto.

But in principle, the answer to your question is actually yes, it would indeed be possible (however unlikely) for double effect to enable someone in the 1850s to vote for a pro-slavery candidate.