Extremely disappointed with Catholic Answers

[bob4]

This is an example of choosing the lesser of two evils: voting for a law even though it still allows some abortions if it is more restrictive than the alternative. We can, and we should, take actions that lessen the harm that would otherwise occur…by choosing the lesser of two evils.

It has been a long time since I encountered the principle of double effect in an ethics class at a Jesuit college but as I recall we were instructed that one may not employ an evil to accomplish a good no matter how good that good is. The principle of double effect permits us to perform actions which produce both the intended good effects and the unintended evil effects (our intentions must be to accomplish the good). I don’t see how the example you cited of “limiting the harm” could be construed as choosing an evil which is the “lesser of two evils.” What am I missing?

 

[neophyte]

No you don’t, the Supreme Court can not and will not overturn it.

The Court most certainly can, and it must.

 

[Anesti33]

Ender:

This is an example of choosing the lesser of two evils: voting for a law even though it still allows some abortions if it is more restrictive than the alternative. We can, and we should, take actions that lessen the harm that would otherwise occur…by choosing the lesser of two evils.

It has been a long time (1963-64) since I encountered the principle of double effect in an ethics class at a Jesuit college but as I recall we were instructed that one may not employ an evil to accomplish a good no matter how good that good is. The principle of double effect permits us to perform actions which produce both the intended good effects and the unintended evil effects (our intentions must be to accomplish the good). I don’t see how the example you cited of “limiting the harm” could be construed as choosing an evil which is the “lesser of two evils.” What am I missing?

Because voting for the law is not intrinsically evil.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

Was the discussion any more boisterous than what you see sometimes in the British Parliament? That’s what it made me think of.

Unfortunately, I think there is a perception outside this country, and even within it, that the entire business of Parliament consists of three hundred or so people on one side of the chamber shouting at three hundred or so people on the other side of the chamber. That does happen, and it is generally considered something of a disgrace by everyone except a hardcore of MPs (mostly middle-aged men who were educated at public school) who believe that it is a robust expression of democracy.

The fact is that this kind of behaviour generally occurs at prime minister’s questions and on other occasions when the whole House is gathered for an important debate on a contentious topic. Most of the business of the House of Commons (i.e. the debates that hardly anybody watches) is conducted in a perfectly calm manner. Debates in the House of Lords are almost always more civilised than those in the Commons. Even in the House of Commons, the incoherent shouting is not generally done by the MPs who are debating each other, but by their respective supporters/opponents. The Speaker is generally pretty good at calling the House to order. During Wednesday’s prime minister’s questions, for example, he intervened a couple of times. From Hansard:

Mr Speaker: Order. May I just say that it is very important to remind everybody that it is Prime Minister’s questions, not Opposition questions? Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.

…

Mr Speaker: Order. I expected the Prime Minister to be heard; I certainly want to hear the leader of the Scottish National party.

Ian Blackford: Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are very used to Scottish voices being shouted down by Tories in this place.

I think the main thing that distinguishes Donald Trump from other politicians on both sides of the Atlantic is that he is, as the Harvard Republican Club memorably put it, “eschewing basic human decency”. The manner in which Trump spoke about Beau Biden was appalling even by his own standards. One cannot imagine a president as notoriously coarse as Lyndon Johnson, nor as crooked as Richard Nixon, speaking in this way. Trump apparently believes that Boris Johnson is created in his image. This is true in a very specific and limited way (such as the very specific and limited way in which Johnson believes that it is acceptable for the British government to break international law). Johnson does not lack basic human decency. (For one of his more elaborate exchanges with John Bercow, see here: The Commonwealth - Tuesday 27 March 2018 - Hansard - UK Parliament and here: FIFA World Cup - Tuesday 27 March 2018 - Hansard - UK Parliament. Even when he is being appalling, it’s hard not to find him quite amusing.)

 

[Anesti33]

You talk a big game about decency and decorum, yet you are unwilling to dignify President Trump with the title of his office.

 

[EmilyAlexandra]

You talk a big game about decency and decorum, yet you are unwilling to dignify President Trump with the title of his office.

I think it is perfectly reasonable to refer to him as “Donald Trump” the first time and thereafter to abbreviate his name to “Trump”. Likewise, I refer to “Boris Johnson” and thereafter to “Johnson”. This is a standard style adopted in academic writing and journalism, so I am sure it is more than acceptable for an internet forum.

 

[Annie]

CAF is not supporting Republicans as Republicans but as the pro-life option.

If I lived in a state like CA, I could vote 3rd party, because it would not make any difference. If I lived in a swing state, however, by voting for a 3rd party I would be reducing the number of votes to the major pro-life party and thus contributing to the possible victory of the party I want least.

This definitely contributed to Bill Clinton’s victory: Perot got 19% of the vote, most of it from people who would otherwise have voted for Bush Sr.

It is a sad feature of our winner-take-all system.

 

[HarryStotle]

adamhovey1988:

but right now, we finally have a chance to overturn Roe V. Wade BECAUSE of President Trump.

What we finally have a chance to do is to continue dismantling the Voting Rights Act, role back environmental regulation, remove health care as a right, undermine confidence in all the American institutions, such as the Post Office, the FBI, the CDC, the NIH, scientists, diplomats, health care workers, etc., embolden right-wing extremist para-military terrorists, reduce taxes on the rich, dismantle the public safety net, further divide the nation, and the carrot is the promise of overturning Roe v Wade - a promise that Trump hardly ever talks about. But apparently a baby carrot is enough. We don’t need a full sized carrot.

Uh huh. A “full sized carrot,” eh? I feel this overwhelming urge to ask, “What’s up, Doc?”

The FBI has done a superb job undermining itself. Why would any reasonable person continue to have confidence in it? I appears you haven’t been keeping up with the document releases.

Even left leaning lawyers are seeing the travesty committed by the DOJ and FBI relative to Lt Gen Michael Flynn. Apparently, you have been missing much of the news.

And complaining of “right wing extremists” being emboldened after over a hundred days of left wing violence, rioting, looting and killing is rich. Clearly, you are connected up to the same telepromoter [sic, but it works] as Joe Biden.

The problem is people cannot tell the truth or even see it clearly.

 

[Gorgias]

So then they go on to subtlety, but clearly lead the caller and listeners away from the idea of voting for a third party candidate who is pro-life.

That’s the part that seems vague. Who? On what program? When?

 

[HarryStotle]

CAF is not supporting Republicans as Republicans but as the pro-life option.

If I lived in a state like CA, I could vote 3rd party, because it would not make any difference. If I lived in a swing state, however, by voting for a 3rd party I would be reducing the number of votes to the major pro-life party and thus contributing to the possible victory of the party I want least.

This definitely contributed to Bill Clinton’s victory: Perot got 19% of the vote, most of it from people who would otherwise have voted for Bush Sr.

It is a sad feature of our winner-take-all system.

Living in Alberta we experienced this directly in 2015 when the NDP (leftist socialist party) took 54 of 87 legislature seats owing to the division of the conservative party into two separate parties - the Progressive Conservative Party and the Wildrose Party.

After the reuniting of the two in 2019 as the United Conservative Party, it took 63 of the 87 seats.

The stunning fact is that the numbers of those voting conservative or NDP stayed pretty much the same in both elections. It is just that the conservative vote in many ridings was divided between two conservative parties while the NDP secured the seat with more votes than either of the others. If the conservatives had remained united in 2015 they would not have lost that election to the NDP.

I would be very thoughtful with how votes are cast. Dividing conservatives up between two competing parties is a good way to ensure the liberal left wins elections. I suspect they know this, which is why there is a concerted push by the left to promote a third party for conservatives.

 

[Victoria33]

I’ve gotten into arguments about it on this site. Here’s one topic where I argued about it in 2018. It’s a bit long, but there for you to check.

That doesn’t say much.

They lose their tax exempt status if they endorse any candidate.

End of. There have been plenty of anti-Trump threads, not sure what this is suppose to prove.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

They lose their tax exempt status if they endorse any candidate.

Are you implying that our clergy would refrain from proclaiming the truth of the Gospel for the sake of a tax break? I will remind you that the first few popes and thousands of other faithful died as martyrs rather than refrain from proclaiming the Gospel.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Was the discussion any more boisterous than what you see sometimes in the British Parliament? That’s what it made me think of.

Hehe. Trump and Biden would be torn apart at PMQs, you could sell it on Pay Per View.

For my money I’d like to see them interviewed. I don’t mean watching Trump field some soft ball questions from Hannity or Biden from Maddow. I mean a proper old school political interview, where the interviewer refrains from getting drawn into a debate with candidates and gets them to answer the question put to them. I don’t know many American journalists who are up to the task but I think the UK would happily lend you Andrew Neil or Jeremy Paxman.

Neil on Ben Shapiro.

Paxman on Michael Howard.

Please note that both interviewers are politically conservative, but their personal opinions do not come into their questioning.

 

[VonDerTann]

Trump? Softballs?

I’m not sure what you’ve been watching.

Trump gets vitriol and hate every time he opens his mouth.

Biden, by contrast, won’t even take reporters’ questions during his limited public appearances; will only do “friendly” interviews; and even then needs a teleprompter - signaling that the interviewers themselves are aware of, and involved with, these fixed, pre-arranged “interviews.”

 

[Naga]

I will remind you that the first few popes and thousands of other faithful died as martyrs rather than refrain from proclaiming the Gospel.

It’s not clear to me how this is relevant to the discussion. An apostle chosen by Christ Himself betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.

 

[Ender]

I don’t see how the example you cited of “limiting the harm” could be construed as choosing an evil which is the “lesser of two evils.” What am I missing?

A bill supports abortion, but is more restrictive than current law. Given that the bill supports abortion, to that extent it is immoral, so how can a conscientious politician vote for it? It is better than the alternative - it is the lesser of the two evils.

I think part of the problem is caused by a misunderstanding of the word “choosing”. We are not really choosing evil, as we do not have free choice in this matter. What we are choosing is to do as little harm as possible. That’s the choice before us, and we are obliged to take it.

 

[Inquisitor85]

Trump? Softballs?

I’m not sure what you’ve been watching.

Trump gets vitriol and hate every time he opens his mouth.

They’re at his so called “helicopter breifings” on his way to Marine One, questions will be more aggressive because you might get one question in and it has to count. The last interview I saw him in was on Fox ‘News’ Channel and he struggled with some, in my opinion, soft questions. I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to say Trump is thin skinned, anything approaching a difficult question and he immediately jumps to insults, he’s lost at that point.

Biden, by contrast, won’t even take reporters’ questions during his limited public appearances; will only do “friendly” interviews; and even then needs a teleprompter - signaling that the interviewers themselves are aware of, and involved with, these fixed, pre-arranged “interviews.”

Yup, no teleprompters and no information before hand. You go in cold, how well can you perform when your feet are being held to fire.

Like I said an old fashioned technique and one that has fallen out of fashion in the US.

 

[HarryStotle]

LeafByNiggle:

I will remind you that the first few popes and thousands of other faithful died as martyrs rather than refrain from proclaiming the Gospel.

It’s not clear to me how this is relevant to the discussion. An apostle chosen by Christ Himself betrayed Him for 30 pieces of silver.

And we have clear evidence that a number of high ranking clergy and a plethora of lay Catholics today do refrain from preaching and living the Gospel. Many are prone to embracing the latest progressive social program and promote “change.” The long march through the institutions includes through the Church, and it is verboten to speak out against the implications because doing so is racist, phobic of some flavour, and exudes western privilege.

Many in the hierarchy support open borders, which has never been part of the teaching of the Church. Yet somehow the Gospel can be rewritten or reinterpreted to include a host of current social justice issues provided there is sufficient public pressure to do so or the pews are more full as a result.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

And we have clear evidence that a number of high ranking clergy and a plethora of lay Catholics today do refrain from preaching and living the Gospel.

What is the number? Is it more than 50% If not, then this excuse of “bad clergy” is not sufficient to explain why endorsing specific candidates is such a rarity.

 

[Victoria33]

Are you implying that our clergy would refrain from proclaiming the truth of the Gospel for the sake of a tax break? I will remind you that the first few popes and thousands of other faithful died as martyrs rather than refrain from proclaiming the Gospel.

Nobody is talking about not preaching the gospel, it is the simple matter of not endorsing candidates.

They can say a lot, even say so and so is doing good but they must be careful not to directly endorse.