Five Non-Negotiable Positions Ignore Crimes against Humanity

[tuopaolo]

Scott Waddell:

Perhaps our Voter’s Guide poo-pooers are under the mistaken notion that it suggests that a Catholic MUST vote for Bush. That is not right. A Catholic could reasonably decide that he could not in good conscience vote for Bush. Fine, but he could not vote for Kerry as an alternative, as he supports policies that are Catholics are bound to oppose. So if he thought the Iraq war is immoral, he must not vote for Bush as it is subjectively binding, but he may not vote for Kerry as the wrongness of abortion is objectively binding. The so-called “proportional reasons” canard would only apply if both were involved in objective wrongdoings.

Scott

Scott, if he thought Bush’s war was wrong and thus opposing the war subjectively binding on him, he could still vote for Bush as the lesser of two evils if he thought that the evil of the abortion holocaust was greater than the (supposed) evil of Bush’s war.

If Bush’s war in Iraq is an unjust war then it is objectively an unjust war. It’s just that the Church hasn’t infallibly ruled on whether it is an unjust war or not nor ruled on it with firmness and authority and thus each Catholic has some measure of freedom to determine with prayer, study and docility to his pastors, whether the war in Iraq is in fact – objectively – just or unjust.

Something is either evil or not. There can be degrees and kinds of evil but there’s no such thing as “subjective evil” versus “objective evil.” It’s just that some things which are evil are clearly and manifestly so or intrinsically so and other things are less clearly or manifestly so or not intrinsically so. Whether something is intrinsically evil or not has to do with the nature of the evil itself. Whether something is clearly and manifestly evil or not has not to do with the nature of the evil, but just with how it relates, epistemically, to us.

Also, proportional reasons doesn’t mean that you have two candidates who both support evil and that it is OK to support one or the other. It would only be OK to support a candidate who supports evil that is proportionate to or proportionately less than the other candidate. You can’t for example support a candidate who advocates the genocide of Russians and Germans over a candidate who advocates the genocide of just Germans, all other things being equal. In such a situation if you are going to vote for either of them you would have to vote for the latter candidate.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

tuopaolo:

Scott, if he thought Bush’s war was wrong and thus opposing the war subjectively binding on him, he could still vote for Bush as the lesser of two evils if he thought that the evil of the abortion holocaust was greater than the (supposed) evil of Bush’s war.

Agreed.

If Bush’s war in Iraq is an unjust war then it is objectively an unjust war. It’s just that the Church hasn’t infallibly ruled on whether it is an unjust war or not nor ruled on it with firmness and authority and thus each Catholic has some measure of freedom to determine with prayer, study and docility to his pastors, whether the war in Iraq is in fact – objectively – just or unjust.
Something is either evil or not. There can be degrees and kinds of evil but there’s no such thing as “subjective evil” versus “objective evil.”

Agreeed. My point is that his determining that the Iraq war is evil is personal and not binding on anyone else. Certain people posting here are making the false dichotomy that the Voter’s Guide, by saying that it is binding Catholic teaching to oppose “the 5”, does not care about war, poverty, etc.

Also, proportional reasons doesn’t mean that you have two candidates who both support evil and that it is OK to support one or the other. It would only be OK to support a candidate who supports evil that is proportionate to or proportionately less than the other candidate. You can’t for example support a candidate who advocates the genocide of Russians and Germans over a candidate who advocates the genocide of just Germans, all other things being equal. In such a situation if you are going to vote for either of them you would have to vote for the latter candidate.

Again agreed. The point of contention is whether one can take his personal, non-binding on anyone else determination of evil and justify a vote for a candidate involved in something determined evil by the Church which is binding on the faithful.

Scott

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Tyler Smedley:

This is an extremely complex way to say that you are right. What about all the Iraqis that were starving and dying under Saddam Hussain? Did their lives not count for you?

Yeah, the people who have been so strident in their opposition to the Iraqi war: where were their voices when Saddam gassed the Kurds? Where were their voices when Saddam’s good sons entertained themselves by dehumanizing and torturing hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Where were their voices when Saddam stole UN money from the Iraqi poor to build palaces? Where were their voices when Russia and France were benefitting hand over fist by the violations of the UN sanctions against Iraq?

Don’t tell me that these people gave a hoot. Don’t even go there. These people started giving a hoot when the War in Iraq started to inconvenience them and when it started asking them to dig deep for answers when they were only willing to dig deep enough to cough up the ticket money for Moore’s weird little movie.

This was my take on it: as long as you don’t ask the anti-War faction to actually do something about ending injustice and suffering, then they are quite happy looking the other way. As soon as you ask them to put their money where their mouths are, then they kill the messenger. Whatever you do, don’t burst their little bubble and don’t rain on their parade.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

sweetchuck:

Actually, you are undeniably wrong. Your post contradicts millenia of Church teachings. That is a very Protestant line of thinking, that sin is sin and all sins are equal. All sins at the very least wound our relationship with God, but some extinguish it entirely and lead to spiritual death. Theft, though wrong, can be diminished in culpability when other factors are present, such as extreme hunger. Read this section of the Catechism for an explanation on the gravity of sins. I would recommend you read all of Article 8, of Part III, Section 1, Chapter 1, but at the very least, just roman numeral IV:

katherine2:

I’ve read it. Its supports my position. You are undeniably wrong and you deny the Church’s teachings. But thank you for your concern.

Not good enough. Please demonstrate that this passage supports your position, that sweetchuck is undeniably wrong, and that sweetchuck denies the Church’s teachings. (The Church meaning the Catholic Church)