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

[Ender]

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?

What is needed are a sufficient number of supreme court justices who believe Roe was wrongfully decided, and are courageous enough to rule against it. I suspect Roberts may believe it was a mistake but I don’t think he has the nerve to be the deciding vote to overturn it. If, however, RBG is replaced with another person who fits that mold, then Roberts might well side with the majority as the 6th vote.

What is needed then is a case that challenges Roe. I would hope that Roe would be reversed, and not that abortion itself be found unconstitutional. That would be too big a change.

 

[Randolph]

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.

I disagree. For illegal immigration to be a moral issue, it must be, like abortion, intrinsically evil to oppose it. In other words, to deny anyone who wants to enter into the any country/sovereignty is evil. Using this line of reasoning, any type of national border is evil. This also includes customs/immigration checks at all international airports. If the whole world wants to enter the US, it would be immoral to oppose or deny them. This really amounts to an open border for the whole world where sovereignty no longer exists, and self defense is wrong. This line of reason also violates moral boundaries of other moral issues. Similarly, if anyone wants to enter your own home and wants to stay, it would be immoral for you to oppose it.

Immigration (legal or illegal) is a political and charity issue. Therefore, prudential judgement is necessary to deal with it. I can not see protecting one’s own sovereignty, or home, is fear mongering. I would argue that it is one’s moral responsibility to do so.

 

[Ender]

Is this how conservatives have felt for a long time?

Are you unfamiliar with that particular episode? That was when the no-holds-barred fights against conservative nominees began. All in the service of protecting Roe.

 

[Ender]

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

As I said, it always comes down to judging people, and always in contradiction to the command not to do it, and always with the conviction that the ones doing the judging are the moral ones.

 

[RepetantCatholic]

I think Trump will win the next election because Democrats have lost their way. My only concern with Trump is the Economy. Manufacturing is already in recession and he promised to help manufacturing. There are parts of the country suffering from Opiod, Drug, Alcohol, Suicide so much so that the category is considered a leading cause of death.

My biggest concern is when the next recession hits. The last two recessions created structural changes widening the gap between rich and poor. If the next recession is a bad one, we may have to think of this country differently. We may go stagnant like Japan has been. So, who knows how this is all going to turn out.

Again, I won’t vote for Trump but I will vote in local issues in my community and state in the next election. My recommendation for most people is to buy an affordable house in a community they like and plan to stay in that community all their life. So, become locally involved.

Maybe I’m being a bad Catholic but I look for politicians to solve Economic and Social problems and not religious problems. It doesn’t seem either party has good options at the moment.

 

[Randolph]

Maybe I’m being a bad Catholic but I look for politicians to solve Economic and Social problems and not religious problems. It doesn’t seem either party has good options at the moment.

I hold the view that boundary between government and individual liberty must be respected. The temptation of government to cross that boundary is too great. Often time, when that happens, disastrous consequences follow. Individuals make the best decisions for themselves—not the government.

In the big picture, debate of ideas is what I like about America… People have a chance to debate ideas (good or bad) and eventually make their voices known in the ballots box. This privilege is not available in large parts of the world.

 

[pnewton]

For illegal immigration to be a moral issue, it must be, like abortion, intrinsically evil to oppose it.

As you said, I disagree. The Church has never made this statement.

 

[Randolph]

I think Trump will win the next election because Democrats have lost their way.

I have noticed—particularly from many pundits/supporters on the right—the exuberance and the arrogance that proclaim Trump will win re-election. 1 month in politics is an eternity—let alone 9 months. These people should be reminded that it was not long ago that Hilary’s crowd sang the same tune—and then what happened?? This pre-matured celebration is ill-advised and could bring disastrous/unintended results.

 

[Rau]

For illegal immigration to be a moral issue, it must be, like abortion, intrinsically evil to oppose it.

Morality derives from more than an act’s moral object. That is, more matters than simply whether the act is intrinsically evil. Acts to prevent or allow illegal immigration, or to help or not refugees, might or might not be moral. But we might not all agree on the analysis.

 

[TMC]

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

Both sides like to say we are one vote away from overturning RvW, because both use it to campaign and raise money. Its just not true.

There is only one sure vote to overturn Roe right now - Thomas. The other Justices have either affirmatively upheld Roe, have declined to say they would overturn Roe, or have not had the opportunity to say. Back in the Scalia era, Scalia and Thomas would always write a separate opposition to say they would overturn Roe v Wade. The other conservatives all declined to join those oppositions. That doesn’t mean they would definitely not join together to overturn RvW if they had the votes, but it does say that they have declined to go on the record saying they would do so.

I think Alito could well be a vote to overturn, despite declining to go on the record for overturning Roe in the past. It seems unlikely to me that Roberts would vote to overturn. So that means you need Gorsuch, Kavenaugh (both big question marks) along with a hypothetical third Trump appointee to join both Alito and Thomas. It seems very unlikely that will happen.

Of course, a more conservative court is likely to continue to approve various abortion restrictions. The court has been drifting more and more conservative for years now, and we are seeing the effects of that.

 

[Ender]

Morality derives from more than an act’s moral object. That is, more matters than simply whether the act is intrinsically evil. Acts to prevent or allow illegal immigration, or to help or not refugees, might or might not be moral. But we might not all agree on the analysis.

If you consider the aspects of an action that make it immoral, if the act is itself not intrinsically evil then pretty much all that’s left is the intention behind it. This is why I hold that political issues like immigration are not moral issues. A person may choose one option or another for an immoral reason, but the options themselves are morally neutral, thus the only way to condemn a person’s choice as immoral is to judge his intention, which we are forbidden to do.

 

[Rau]

then pretty much all that’s left is the intention behind it.

Pretty much?

Yes, there are intentions. Eg, to ingratiate oneself etc. there are also consequences and in weighing them we need some understanding of moral goods and evils and moral weights. Be careful about ruling out the existence of moral content beyond the object and intention. That thinking can be used as “cover” to hold to pet positions, pretending its all just a matter of opinion and we don’t need to think too hard or look to closely.

 

[Ender]

Yes, there are intentions. Eg, to ingratiate oneself etc. there are also consequences and in weighing them we need some understanding of moral goods and evils and moral weights. Be careful about ruling out the existence of moral content beyond the object and intention. That thinking can be used as “cover” to hold to pet positions, pretending its all just a matter of opinion and we don’t need to think too hard or look to closely.

The circumstances (including the consequences) surrounding an action define the nature of the problem, but do not themselves change its moral value. Circumstances may be consequential or benign, the consequences may be beneficial or harmful, but they are not themselves moral and do not make an immoral action moral, nor a moral one immoral.

If the object is not immoral then the only way an action can be immoral is if the intent is immoral. This is why calling someone’s position on a political issue immoral always involves a judgment of the intention (save for the exceptions I noted).

Yes, we absolutely need to weigh the consequences of our actions, but in the end that analysis goes to our intention. We do X because we choose the consequences we think it will engender.

 

[Bill6]

His Eminence Cardinal Burke is right. He bravely upheld Church teaching. What he did was really an act of love.

Gos bless

 

[Rau]

Yes, we absolutely need to weigh the consequences of our actions, but in the end that analysis goes to our intention.

Would you have it there are only 2 fonts of morality Ender? I stand by my prior response.

 

[Randolph]

His Eminence Cardinal Burke is right. He bravely upheld Church teaching. What he did was really an act of love.

…and a call for conversion… A shepherd tried to welcome home a lost sheep.

 

[Ender]

Would you have it there are only 2 fonts of morality Ender? I stand by my prior response.

No, there are three, but the circumstances are a bit different from the other two, as the catechism notes.

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

 

[Rau]

Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves ; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

Ender - that statement does not say what you may think it says. The statement does not say that Circumstances (includes the Consequences) cannot make an otherwise good act evil.

As the Catechism (I’ll quote from the Compendium, which is handy) says: “The morality of human acts depends on three sources: the object chosen , either a true or apparent good; the intention of the subject who acts, that is, the purpose for which the subject performs the act; and the circumstances of the act, which include its consequences.”

And then:
"An act is morally good when it assumes simultaneously the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances. "

So note - goodness in all three fonts is a requirement. The circumstances is not left out.

And further, the Intention of the one acting is: “the purpose for which the subject performs the act”.

Consequences are not taken to be in the Intention font unless they are in fact what is intended. The good & bad consequences are evaluated - weighed - under the moral law. This moral weighing includes the material but also the spiritual consequences (all to the extent that one can reasonably foresee the consequences). If we judge the moral weight of the good consequences to exceed that of the bad, then the 3rd font is good - quite independent of moral object or Intention. If the reverse is true - then the act as a whole is condemned as evil - quite apart from a good Intention and Moral Object.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Happy Cake Day!

Where did your user come from?

 

[Ender]

Consequences are not taken to be in the Intention font unless they are in fact what is intended.

It would seem that the expected consequences would always be part of the intent given that every act is taken for a purpose and that purpose would be to achieve those consequences. I don’t believe one is accountable for the unexpected consequences except in cases of carelessness or indifference. Circumstances affect ones culpability for an act but don’t reverse its nature.

If we judge the moral weight of the good consequences to exceed that of the bad, then the 3rd font is good - quite independent of moral object or Intention.

I’m not sure how that judgment can be independent of the intention. Once we have judged the consequences then we act with the expectation that our act will result in those consequences. How is that not part of the intent?

In any event the comment that started this was about determining the moral nature of political proposals. If the proposal does not include an intrinsically evil act I contend there is no way that it can be considered evil that does not include the judgment that the person who supports it is evil, a judgment we are forbidden to make.