'One of the greatest moral evils': Cardinal Raymond Burke supports refusing Communion to Biden, U.S. Presidential candidate

[Ender]

I hope you are right, but having heard the same thing over and over again since Reagan was in office…

Had Robert Bork been confirmed (under Reagan) there would have been a majority against Roe. The Democrats defeated his nomination because the Republicans did not stand up against their tactics. Not since that nomination has the likelihood of getting the decisive justice been so high. What you have heard “over and over again” is the observation that abortion cannot be ended so long as Roe stands…and that Roe will stand until the liberal judges are sufficiently outvoted. At the moment it looks like one more Trump nominee should do it. What would really hurt would be to keep Trump and lose the Senate. What is disappointing is the realization that Catholics might not be all that helpful in finally clearing this hurdle.

I see putting all the eggs in the same failed basket as somewhat foolish.

Nor has this been suggested by anyone, nor has it ever been done. It remains, however, a necessary step.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How about an example of someone actually saying this? And not a case of someone rejecting one proposal without recommending another. I frankly doubt that anyone anywhere has ever said “Let’s not do anything” with regard to any real problem.

President Trump’s policies. They say essentially “We have done enough already. We will make it even harder than it was to seek asylum in the US.”

 

[Ender]

President Trump’s policies. They say essentially “We have done enough already. We will make it even harder than it was to seek asylum in the US.”

This is simply you assigning motivation to his actions and then condemning him because you disapprove of the intentions you have ascribed. This is “I don’t like Trump’s policies. He’s evil.” Is it immoral to support building a wall? Is it immoral to try to stem the flood of illegals storming across the border? What specific policy is evil?

As I said, there is no reasonable way to condemn a particular policy as immoral; all that can be done is condemn people who support certain proposals for their motivations. You are judging Trump, not his policies, and that is the judgment we are forbidden to make.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

President Trump’s policies. They say essentially “We have done enough already. We will make it even harder than it was to seek asylum in the US.”

This is simply you assigning motivation to his actions and then condemning him because you disapprove of the intentions you have ascribed. This is “I don’t like Trump’s policies. He’s evil.” Is it immoral to support building a wall? Is it immoral to try to stem the flood of illegals storming across the border? What specific policy is evil?

As I said, there is no reasonable way to condemn a particular policy as immoral; all that can be done is condemn people who support certain proposals for their motivations. You are judging Trump, not his policies, and that is the judgment we are forbidden to make.

I did not say it was evil to build a wall. You asked for an example of someone essentially choosing to do nothing to comfort the refugees. I gave you one. What has Trump done for them that could, under any stretch of the imagination, be considered a help to them that is in any way comparable to the help he has denied them?

 

[Ender]

You asked for an example of someone essentially choosing to do nothing to comfort the refugees. I gave you one.

No, this is not at all what I was referring to. The claim is made that political issues are also moral issues, immigration being prominent among the examples. I have said these are not moral issues because there is no moral choice involved in deciding what approach will in fact be most beneficial, and that moral claims about political questions always reduce to moral judgments about the people who hold those positions rather than moral condemnation of the positions themselves.

This is all you have done here. You condemn Trump for not helping refugees. You have morally judged him. What you have not done, and what I claim cannot be done, is to find a moral fault with any reasonable proposal made on any political issue with the exception of those very few topics that deal with intrinsic evils such as abortion.

Political issues are not moral issues. That you are willing to judge someone immoral for advancing a particular political solution remains a judgment of a person, not of the solution. It also remains an act (a judgment) we are expressly forbidden to make.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

You asked for an example of someone essentially choosing to do nothing to comfort the refugees. I gave you one.

No, this is not at all what I was referring to. The claim is made that political issues are also moral issues, immigration being prominent among the examples. I have said these are not moral issues because there is no moral choice involved in deciding what approach will in fact be most beneficial,

But that is not what Trump has done. He has made a decision as to what is most beneficial for him and for the US, and I cannot fault him for that, because it is a prudential judgement. But he has made no decision that benefits refugees at all compared to the help he has denied them. It is not a matter of deciding which program would benefit them more. It is clearly a decision not to benefit them at all. Any claims that this is a prudential choice between reasonable programs just isn’t supportable.

 

[Ender]

But he has made no decision that benefits refugees at all compared to the help he has denied them.

Again, this is a judgment of Trump, not of his policies. You assert that he has an obligation to benefit “refugees”, but in Trump’s mind (and most of his supporter’s) his first obligation is to US citizens, and especially those who are impacted by the illegals who flood the country.

It is not a matter of deciding which program would benefit them more. It is clearly a decision not to benefit them at all.

Right. This is a judgment of Trump, and this is exactly my point. All claims that political issues are moral issues boil down to this single charge: “My opponent is evil.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

But he has made no decision that benefits refugees at all compared to the help he has denied them.

Again, this is a judgment of Trump, not of his policies. You assert that he has an obligation to benefit “refugees”, but in Trump’s mind (and most of his supporter’s) his first obligation is to US citizens, and especially those who are impacted by the illegals who flood the country.

It is not a matter of deciding which program would benefit them more. It is clearly a decision not to benefit them at all.

Right. This is a judgment of Trump, and this is exactly my point. All claims that political issues are moral issues boil down to this single charge: “My opponent is evil.”

It is not a judgment of Trump. It is a judgment of his policies regarding refugees. Initially you characterized this question as a judgment of which of several policies would best accomplish the same goal. But now we see it is a judgment of which goal we should accomplish. And apparently helping refugees is not the one.

But let me go back to the “exception” you mentioned earlier regarding intrinsic evils like abortion. While the decision to call them evil are clearly moral decisions, the decision of what policies would best address this evil is not (using your argument regarding refugees, but applying it to abortion). One person may believe that harsh criminal penalties for abortion doctors is the best way to reduce this evil. Another person (who detests abortion just as much as the first person) may believe that free health care is more effective at reducing abortion. I do not want to argue the merits of either of these approaches here, but using the same argument you used, we are expressly prohibited from passing judgment on people’s motives. Therefore the decision to use harsh criminal penalties vs free health care is not a moral decision but a prudential judgment. The fact that abortion is an intrinsic evil does not provide any excuse for treating this situation as an exception because both of the two people I mentioned agree that it is an intrinsic evil. The fact that it is an intrinsic evil does not automatically imply that free health care is not an effective way to oppose this evil. You may not agree, but that’s the nature of prudential judgments. People do not agree.

 

[Rau]

What you have heard “over and over again” is the observation that abortion cannot be ended so long as Roe stands…

What is the required sequence of events to change R v W?
Step 1: Appoint a pro life judge (to replace a pro abortion judge);

Then what?

 

[Rau]

It is clearly a decision not to benefit them at all.

You appear to be saying that his policy does not reflect in any reasonable way love of neighbour?

Again, this is a judgment of Trump, not of his policies. You assert that he has an obligation to benefit “refugees”, but in Trump’s mind (and most of his supporter’s) his first obligation is to US citizens, and especially those who are impacted by the illegals who flood the country.

Sounds like Leaf is critical of Trump’s actions/inactions versus what we might expect from a Gospel adherent.

 

[pnewton]

Prudential judgement is also needed to determine the security risks and the economic risks

I think this is my issue with the way prudence is used. Before one can know what is prudence, the question first must be asked what is trying to be accomplished. The first one, I understand is a legitimate moral concern. However, we have to be open to the possibility that since immigrants legal and otherwise are not statistically at higher risk of committing more crime. When we see they have a lower crime rate, and realize that the argument for the danger has been exclusively made from anecdotal evidence, there must be at least some consideration that what we have here is fear-mongering.

The other part of the risk is economic, that is money, you know, that root of all evil. So while the Church does speak of prudential judgement, it does so in a moral context, that is, what is the best way to accomplish the greatest moral good, not increase wealth, or give into fear. I would bet there is not one bishop in this country that has spoken out against the USCCB and claimed immigration, healthcare, racism, poverty, etc., are not moral issues just because prudence is needed.

 

[pnewton]

Sounds like Leaf is critical of Trump’s actions/inactions versus what we might expect from a Gospel adherent.

Really? A petty insult? Do you think Pope Francis does not adhere to the Gospel when he is critical of Trump’s immigration policy? I find such attacks on the Christianity of another inappropriate for a Christian website.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

The Democrats defeated his nomination because the Republicans did not stand up against their tactics.

Is this how conservatives have felt for a long time?

 

[Rau]

Really? A petty insult? Do you think Pope Francis does not adhere to the Gospel when he is critical of Trump’s immigration policy? I find such attacks on the Christianity of another inappropriate for a Christian website.

What? This is about actions. If a man walks past another injured on the road, is it ok to say that that act does not appear to be in accord with the Gospel?
Your post makes no sense to me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

What you have heard “over and over again” is the observation that abortion cannot be ended so long as Roe stands…

And not even if Roe falls.

 

[pnewton]

As a Catholic site, there should never be in questioning of the Christianity of one that agrees with Pope Francis, who said:

“Builders of walls, be they made of razor wire or bricks, will end up becoming prisoners of the walls they build,”

“I realize that with this problem (of migration), a government has a hot potato in its hands, but it must be resolved differently, humanely, not with razor wire,”

“I don’t know what’s happening with this new culture of defending territories by building walls. We already knew one, that (one) in Berlin, which brought so many headaches and so much suffering,”

"Separating children from their parents goes against natural law, and those Christians … you can’t do it. It is cruel. It is among the greatest of cruelties. And to defend what? Territory, or the economy of a country or who knows what,”

This is true Christianity for adherents to the Gospel.

Let me add one more quote from a homily on immigration of his last year:

“In the end, we too risk becoming like that rich man in the Gospel who is unconcerned for the poor man Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man’s table. Too intent on buying elegant clothes and organizing lavish banquets, the rich man in the parable is blind to Lazarus’s suffering. Overly concerned with preserving our own well-being, we too risk being blind to our brothers and sisters in difficulty.”

To be clear, the rich man that turns his back on the poor goes to a place of torment. There he was forever separated by a great gulf from the place where Lazarus was comforted. So, if no one wants to listen to me, Leaf, or Pope Francis, perhaps Jesus carries some weight here.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You appear to be saying that his policy does not reflect in any reasonable way love of neighbour?

Close. My claim is not that strong. It is only that his policies do not reflect and reasonable way of loving these particular neighbors. It may be a love of some other neighbors though.

 

[Rau]

Really? A petty insult? Do you think Pope Francis does not adhere to the Gospel when he is critical of Trump’s immigration policy? I find such attacks on the Christianity of another inappropriate for a Christian website.

Now I understand. You’ve misread my post as insulting Leaf! Read it again - it was not Leaf or his actions that were being addressed.

 

[Ender]

It is not a judgment of Trump. It is a judgment of his policies regarding refugees.

OK, be specific: describe one that is per se immoral. You get to choose anything at all.

Initially you characterized this question as a judgment of which of several policies would best accomplish the same goal. But now we see it is a judgment of which goal we should accomplish. And apparently helping refugees is not the one.

So where is the moral fault? Not agreeing with you over what goals should take priority? Your objection still reduces to the same complaint: “Those who oppose me are evil.” How is faulting Trump’s judgment “of which goal to accomplish” a moral condemnation?

The fact that abortion is an intrinsic evil does not provide any excuse for treating this situation as an exception…

If you wish to argue that even issues involving intrinsic evils are not moral issues, fine. But if they aren’t, then no other issue is either…which makes my point.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Initially you characterized this question as a judgment of which of several policies would best accomplish the same goal. But now we see it is a judgment of which goal we should accomplish. And apparently helping refugees is not the one.

It is the difference between comforting the afflicted vs comforting the comfortable.