Party efforts determine the Supreme Court make up. Very measurable role.
We have 5 Supreme Court justices, all Catholic, all GOP appointed now. In Carhart, only two, on a concurring opinion, raised the issue of Roe/Casey’s constitutionality. The other three simply applied it as law and argued that the ban was consititutional because it would not stop any abortions (the opinion gave a handy guideline on how to circumvent the ban).
The question is, what are we obliged to do as Catholics. The Vatican has a Doctrinal Note regarding voting:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html
In section 4, we will first find the following statement:
John Paul II, continuing the constant teaching of the Church, has reiterated many times that those who are directly involved in lawmaking bodies have a «grave and clear obligation to oppose» any law that attacks human life. For them, as for every Catholic, it is impossible to promote such laws or to vote for them.
That sounds absolute, you can’t vote for for anything that violates our concept of “right to life” (which is broader than just abortion). But, the document then continues with an explanation of a narrow exception called “limiting the harm”, introduced by John Paul II in EVANGELIUM VITAE.
As John Paul II has taught in his Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae regarding the situation in which it is not possible to overturn or completely repeal a law allowing abortion which is already in force or coming up for a vote, «an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality».
The example is an elected official, with impecable credentials attempting to lessen harm. So the obvious question is, how broadly can this concept be taken? Is it just elected officials, or can we compromise in voting to limit the harm ourselves?
The next paragraph reads:
In this context “limiting the harm”, italicized in the previous paragraph], it must be noted also that a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals. The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good. Nor can a Catholic think of delegating his Christian responsibility to others; rather, the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives him this task, so that the truth about man and the world might be proclaimed and put into action.
This appears to state that you cannot use the concept of “limiting the harm” to justify compromising on other important Catholic teachings. The faith is an “integral unity” so compromsing it is potentially harmful to the whole. Further, it warns that political committment to something is not a substitute for one’s comprehensive Christian obligations.
This leads to the question, what is “fundemental”, that is, what sorts of things cannot be compromised in limiting the harm?
The document continues:
When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning…
So, the section, read in order, appears to say:
- You can’t vote in violation of right to life (notice, not just abortion, but Catholic right to life).
- If you are a politician, there is a narrow exception to allow you to help “limit the harm”.
- It must be remembered that “limiting the harm” cannot be used to rationalize compromise or abridgement of other fundemtal tenants of the faith or basic Christian morality, since doing so can potentially undermine the entire Faith.
- And when it comes to really important things, things we absolutely cannot compromise on, our Catholic reponsibility “becomes more evident and laden with responsibility”, that includes the principles of…
There are then nine things listed in the document. I believe that the Church is saying that they are non negotiable (“moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation”). Ender and Rlg appear to be arguing that they can be compromised under the concept of “limiting the harm”.
To me, that is the important question. Rather or not compromise is effective is a seperate question. It appears that compromise has not been measurably effective. Ender contends that it is people like me, arguing that the non negotiables should be all voted, that are impeding progress. I argue that it is the compromise itself that impedes measurable progress.
The ultimate source is the Church, which is why I quote and link to Church documents so often.
