Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives?

[Ender]

I agree with a lot of what you said, with the exception that minimum wage, etc are not ethical issues but merely economic. Ethical approaches, utilizing inherent moral guidance of conscience, should dictate economic policy while making sure not to hurt the economic model in the process for the community at large. If it were purely economic, there wouldn’t be a question on how or why these things exist- they wouldn’t.

I’m making a finer point than this. We have a moral obligation to address the problems of the poor. Fulfilling that obligation, however, requires us to make decisions about what will or will not work and in the application of specific solutions we are not faced with moral problems. It isn’t clear to me that determining what to do about the minimum wage is any more of a moral concern than determining how to get your neighbor’s car started. Once the decision has been made to do what one can to help the rest is mechanics.

The argument that economic issues are moral issues as well can only be sustained if you judge someone’s intent. If you accept that everyone wants to do what is best, where is the moral distinction?

When one seeks to divorce morality and ethics from any governmental or personal decision, that person has just swung a wrecking ball at the thread which barely holds our society together.

But this isn’t my point and this is not the problem we face in resolving social ills. If we accept a just objective - which is a moral choice - the choices (within reason) of how to reach that objective have no moral component. Pick any issue at all and tell me what specific policy constitutes an immoral choice as distinct from a mistake.

Notice what Dr. Friedman says at the end, as it raises the economic question built upon by Dr. Sowell and then shows how morality and ethically sound approaches actual do better without intervention, such as in church programs, hospitals, etc.

I confess to not reading the sources but your summary shows we are still on different points. The question is not whether or not we should care or behave ethically but about which approaches work and which do not. Is, for example, the decision to accept or reject Dr. Sowell’s conclusion a moral choice or a prudential one?

Ender

 

[jonbhorton]

In the theme of the thread, and how I view it, I’d say the prudential choice must contain a moral element to decide upon as a factor. As I said, cold, hard economic choices made should totally discard morality as a reason, if they are made totally with a calculating business mind. But one good, lopsided deal for me does not engender repeat business, nor does it make sure that I even stay in business. What good is a minimum wage and being forced to pay benefits, when the company goes under? On the same coin, different side, what sort of loyalty can I expect from employees I treat like overpaid slaves? I must, if I wish to stay in business, make an ethical choice to arrive at a prudent decision. You simply can’t divorce morality, or it’s all for nothing and every man for himself.

That’s basically where we are at, not the prudential nature of any decision, but the moral azimuth pointing us there. If we forget the compass and focus on the objective, sure, we might find our way, but the reality is we will likely just become lost.

Getting neighbor’s car started can certainly be an ethical/moral decision in its overall impact to your day. Every decision we make is made in light, or defiance, of our conscience. To think otherwise is to surmise a world where lack of conscience is acceptable and normal. It’s not. All decisions are run through or around that filter, and thus, all decisions are based on an ethical decision leading to the one deemed prudent.

 

[Ender]

I’d say the prudential choice must contain a moral element to decide upon as a factor.

Perhaps my position would be clearer if you tried to supply a very specific example. I think you will find that the only way to challenge a person’s action is to challenge his intent. I accept that a bad intent makes any action bad but what I reject is the idea that you can call an action immoral based solely on the act (unless it involves an intrinsic evil) and that what is commonly called an immoral act is only a judgment about someone’s intent.

As I said, cold, hard economic choices made should totally discard morality as a reason, if they are made totally with a calculating business mind.

Suppose Person A makes a choice based solely on cold, hard, economics while Person B makes a choice based on his expectation of what will be most socially beneficial. Is Person B’s choice moral? What if he makes exactly the same choice as Person A, albeit for entirely different reasons - is not his choice still a moral one?

You simply can’t divorce morality, or it’s all for nothing and every man for himself.

I’m making no progress at all if you believe I am advocating the removal of morality from our actions.

Getting neighbor’s car started can certainly be an ethical/moral decision in its overall impact to your day.

Once I have decided to help, what moral choice remains? If I tell my neighbor to replace his battery while you think he should replace his alternator, have either of us committed an immoral act? You cannot say I acted immorally simply because you think my solution is wrong and yours is right. You have to know my intent in order to judge the morality of my action and this is no different whether I propose replacing a battery or eliminating the minimum wage.

Ender

 

[SirStephen]

This may surprise some but I’ve never met a “Conservative Catholic” who believes that their politically conservative views are one and the same with the “Will of God” but I have heard many on the other side make such accusations. If one thinks of such comments as projections, one could openly wonder whether the statements more reflect the views of the person asking the question and projected to the other side. Not being a Conservative - but also not being a Liberal - my concern is not with the straw man of Conservative Catholics but rather with progressive Catholics who conflate state policy on labor, just wage, global government, casus belli arguments (and I’ve simply never heard a argument for war based on “American Exceptionalism” by anyone), ect with the Church position on the same - or with God more generally.

In truth, where I have no choice in a decision, I am not more Catholic because of it. Turning that decision - all such decisions - over to the state simply reduces me from citizen to subject where my free will in a decision has been so constricted as to be meaningless. My fear with the left side of the Church is that they are actually (not just philosophically) so in line with progressive politics (CHD’s Alinkyist roots for example) that one often hears arguments that seem to render unto Caesar that things that are God’s - or man’s (as in individual persons) in his or her free will! Not being a Republican and not a fan of Bainer (Speaker of the House), it was none-the-less interesting to hear Catholic professors of theology call for a ban the Speakers speaking at a Catholic institute NOT because his views violated Church canon (he is Catholic) - but rather because he was voting for a bill a certain way. Very unseemly and very confused!

 

[SirStephen]

This may surprise some but I’ve never met a “Conservative Catholic” who believes that their politically conservative views are one and the same with the “Will of God” but I have heard many on the other side make such accusations. If one thinks of such comments as projections, one could openly wonder whether the statements more reflect the views of the person asking the question and projected to the other side. Not being a Conservative - but also not being a Liberal - my concern is not with the straw man of Conservative Catholics but rather with progressive Catholics who conflate state policy on labor, just wage, global government, casus belli arguments (and I’ve simply never heard a argument for war based on “American Exceptionalism” by anyone), ect with the Church position on the same - or with God more generally.

In truth, where I have no choice in a decision, I am not more Catholic because of it. Turning that decision - all such decisions - over to the state simply reduces me from citizen to subject where my free will in a decision has been so constricted as to be meaningless. My fear with the left side of the Church is that they are actually (not just philosophically) so in line with progressive politics (CHD’s Alinkyist roots for example) that one often hears arguments that seem to render unto Caesar that things that are God’s - or man’s (as in individual persons) in his or her free will! Not being a Republican and not a fan of Bainer (Speaker of the House), it was none-the-less interesting to hear Catholic professors of theology call for a ban the Speakers speaking at a Catholic institute NOT because his views violated Church canon (he is Catholic) - but rather because he was voting for a bill a certain way. Very unseemly and very confused!

 

[jonbhorton]

Perhaps my position would be clearer if you tried to supply a very specific example.

How can I clarify your position via my own example, if you posit that I don’t understand what you are intending? I’ll work with the example you provide from my perspective, as I think that would be easier to reconcile.

**I think you will find that the only way to challenge a person’s action is to challenge his intent. **

The entire issue is because of the same intent with different ways of approaching it. To argue against the intent of the OP’s position is to argue against my own intent. That’s dumb. I agree with the intent of the leftist Catholics, I just disagree with their method of getting there, particularly when it belies the entire reason, at its base and core, that we even have such intent- to preserve human dignity in the proper application of state and social policy* through the people*, and not in spite of them.
**
I accept that a bad intent makes any action bad but what I reject is the idea that you can call an action immoral based solely on the act (unless it involves an intrinsic evil) and that what is commonly called an immoral act is only a judgment about someone’s intent.**

Bad intent does not necessarily make an action intrinsically “bad”. Again, the argument, in the context of this thread, is not intent- I assume that the leftist Catholics have good intent, but just don’t understand how harmful their actions in search of that intent’s fruition.
**
Suppose Person A makes a choice based solely on cold, hard, economics while Person B makes a choice based on his expectation of what will be most socially beneficial. Is Person B’s choice moral? What if he makes exactly the same choice as Person A, albeit for entirely different reasons - is not his choice still a moral one?
I’m making no progress at all if you believe I am advocating the removal of morality from our actions.**

It’s situational dependent. If person A is denying his moral conscience and only seeing the good for himself, despite the good it can bring, the decision is immoral, but doesn’t mean the actual act is immoral in and of itself. Person B may arrive at the same conclusion (such as in the leftist Catholics), but for different reasons and with a totally “moral” argument. The problem is that the logic leading to the decision of Person B, while made with moral intent, has corollary implications which neutralize or even negatively impacts the entire situation. The leftist Catholic seeks to, in effect, make society pay and thus while people are helped, others are hurt. Even worse, it is a situation which furthers the chasm between social/economic classes and causes dissent amongst those who would have loved to give charitably to causes they wish to patronize. I don’t begrudge charity, I begrudge being forced into charity. I don’t want to contribute money to illegal immigrants, homosexuals, abortion related organizations, or even most Catholic “social justice” organizations because they’re dirty socialists at their core.

However, I’ll gladly send money overseas or even domestically for causes which still seek the spreading of the Gospel but also are dear to my heart. I’d rather give $1000 to Pakistani Christian Militia which protects Christian communities, or some start-up basement parish in Saudi Arabia, or for reconstruction of bombed out/shot up Chaldean churches in Iraq, than I would give $5 to virtually any domestic Catholic charity which is ultimately harmful to its expressed cause by aligning itself with secular, immoral special interest groups.

 

[jonbhorton]

**Once I have decided to help, what moral choice remains? If I tell my neighbor to replace his battery while you think he should replace his alternator, have either of us committed an immoral act? You cannot say I acted immorally simply because you think my solution is wrong and yours is right. **

You cannot arrive at B without going through A, with A being the initial moral choice which said, “help yo neighor, foo’!”. The objective of C, being a working car, might find itself at an impasse of B1 and B2 (battery and alternator, respectively). We both have the same intent, I’d hope, of getting the neighbor’s car working. Here’s where the moral choice comes in:

I must defer to knowledge above my own. This is a confronting of pride. I might really think that the alternator needs to be replaced, at that point, we discuss the merits of each. If you are a mechanic, and I’m me (not a mechanic), I’ll defer to you, or I’ll use my influence with the neighbor to override you. That’s a moral choice, I’m making it with the intent of helping the neighbor. If I succumb to pride, the intent is now slashed to bits, though B2 might very well lead to C quite well.

Now, let’s say there isn’t a B1 and B2, just B. I’m then going to have a make a moral choice in light of the circumstances. Say the neighbor is late for work, obviously replacing the alternator isn’t a quick fix, nor is the battery. I am not working that day. I could: give the neighbor a ride to work and call it good, or I could give the neighbor a ride to work, and be there when the tow-truck arrives, or I could give the neighbor a ride to work, go buy the replacement part (keep receipt), have a mechanically fluent friend come over who owes me a favor, use that favor for the neighbor’s benefit, and drive with the friend in a two car convoy, drop the neighbor’s car with neighbor, and work out the details later.

Or, I could say, “sorry Bob! I’m late for the KoC meeting, can’t help ya!”. That might seem harsh in light of what could have been done, but, what if that particular KoC meeting has a greater importance unknown to the neighbor? What if they say, “oh!, I’m going right by the meeting place, can you give me a ride?”. Well, another moral choice.

Again, all choices are passed through or around the filter of our conscience.
Throughout the process of bringing the original intent (working car) to fruition, I’m constantly faced with moral choices.

It’s almost entering into relativism, but, yes, there can be multiple iterations of moral/immoral choice making which results in either good or bad consequences, though not all consequences are known, or even can be known in this life: enter the Golden Rule.

You have to know my intent in order to judge the morality of my action and this is no different whether I propose replacing a battery or eliminating the minimum wage.

The intent is not the argument, it’s the basis of “common ground”. What is hurting the leftists is they’re approaching the concept of helping others from a standpoint that is ultimately damaging to the people both secularly and morally. Deracinating the Church from charity, and supplanting the same help with immoral secular entities and governments at the expense of communal effort and unity is just bad.

At this point, intent is all we have to go on. What must be explored is how each method proposed best succeeds in the fruition of that intent. That requires stepping back and looking at methods in history from all angles, including the moral.

Again, Dr. Thomas Sowell illustrates the contrast of the two approaches:
youtube.com/watch?v=5KHdhrNhh88

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The exceptions to this are the handful of issues that involve acts that are intrinsically evil and on those, and those alone, the Church has a narrow position. She does not say merely that we should generically “value life”, she proclaims that we must oppose abortion.

But even this admonition has some element of generality, needing specific decisions on my part for application. For example, I hear that there is a march for life in the next town. It is 20 miles away. I could go. But my kid has a soccer game here at the same time and he would really like me to see him play - it’s the last game of the season. So is the Church’s narrow position clear on what I should do with regard to this intrinsic evil? Or do I rather have a personal choice to make that is, as you say,to work out the details of exactly how I will oppose abortion in this instance, in somewhat the same way as I have a personal decision to make as to how to feed the poor? In this instance they seem very similar.

 

[Ender]

But even this admonition has some element of generality, needing specific decisions on my part for application. For example, I hear that there is a march for life in the next town. It is 20 miles away. I could go. But my kid has a soccer game here at the same time and he would really like me to see him play - it’s the last game of the season. So is the Church’s narrow position clear on what I should do with regard to this intrinsic evil?

I’m pretty sure we can all agree that your choice in this instance would be prudential; neither choice is intrinsically evil.

Or do I rather have a personal choice to make that is, as you say,to work out the details of exactly how I will oppose abortion in this instance, in somewhat the same way as I have a personal decision to make as to how to feed the poor? In this instance they seem very similar.

Of course you have a personal choice to make. My point here is solely that I cannot condemn as immoral whichever choice you make. Since neither choice involves intrinsic evil and since I cannot know the intent behind your choice I have no grounds to make a moral judgment of your actions. I think this point is true of nearly all political issues. I am not saying one cannot behave immorally in supporting a specific position on (e.g.) the minimum wage, all I’m saying is that no matter what position someone takes there is no justification for others to judge that position as immoral. This is why it is incorrect to claim that one’s political opinions are supported by Church teaching. With the exception of about five issues (all involving intrinsic evil) the Church has no position whatever on the specific means to be employed to achieve the guidelines she proclaims (feed the hungry, heal the sick …).

Ender

 

[davidmlamb]

I am thinking that what Catholics in the USA need is a Pastoral Letter addressed to those in the political/cultural camp known as the “Conservatives.”

I envision that this letter would, above all, make clear that the Catholic Church does NOT fully endorse or agree with everything that is high on the agenda of Conservatives, and does not accept or approve of all the theories, philosophies, motives, ideologies that are an accepted and popular part of the Conservative Movement in the USA.

I think many Conservatives feel that the Catholic Church, and God, is 100% on their side in their cold war with Liberals. I think that my be true of some individual priests, and maybe even a few bishops. But, it is not true for the pope and bishops of the Catholic Church as a whole, and they constitute the true and real Teaching Authority.

Many Conservatives really are firmly opposed the Catholic Church’s teaching on Labor Unions (a Labor Union called Solidarity in Communist Poland brought an end to Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, thank God), the Minimum Wage (aka, Just Wage), Global Government, Social Medical Insurance, the Death Penalty, sometimes the Just War theory (supplanted by the theory of American Exceptionalism in the minds of some Conservatives), and other matters as well.

Many people were deeply dismayed when a prominent Conservative who is also a Catholic, George Weigel, wrote and published a scathing denunciation of Pope Benedict’s encyclical letter “Caritas in Veritate.” Read about it here: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100002538/george-weigels-intemperate-attack-on-benedicts-incoherent-encyclical/

I see no need for a Pastoral Letter to the Liberals, since Liberals and everyone else already knows of their radical rejectioni of many parts of Catholic teaching (on abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, divorce and remarriage, euthanasia, etc.

A “Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives” would provide a lot of clarification, I think. It could also cover things that the Catholic Church teachings and the Conservative Movement have in common, which are many. But it would make clear that the Conservative Movement is not a Catholic movement, and the Catholic Church is not “one with” the Conservative Movement, or in service to the Conservative Movement, nor is the Conservative Movement in service to the Catholic Church (how can it be, when so many of its leaders dissent from Catholic teachings?)

What do you think? Would like to see and read a “Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives”? Would it be good for souls, for America?

I strongly agree with you. In fact I will be bold enough to say that conservatism as it has evolved in today is an evil spirit desguised as an angel of light and is a diabolical seduction of the soul. It does not serve God but it serves self and is the spirit of rebellion. Yes such a pastoral letter will be polarizing but it will be the Church speaking the wisdom of God to the rulers and authorities in the heavelnly realm (Ephes 3:10). Such a letter will seperate the sheep from the goats but most of all it will call many souls who have been seduced by this abominbable evil out of the darkness and back into the light. Let us never forget that the devil is as a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour. Holy Water is Holy but secretly introduce cyanide into the holy water it will become an instrument of ruin and perdition.

Peace in Christ,

David

 

[dmelosi]

I strongly agree with you. In fact I will be bold enough to say that conservatism as it has evolved in today is an evil spirit desguised as an angel of light and is a diabolical seduction of the soul. It does not serve God but it serves self and is the spirit of rebellion. Yes such a pastoral letter will be polarizing but it will be the Church speaking the wisdom of God to the rulers and authorities in the heavelnly realm (Ephes 3:10). Such a letter will seperate the sheep from the goats but most of all it will call many souls who have been seduced by this abominbable evil out of the darkness and back into the light. Let us never forget that the devil is as a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour. Holy Water is Holy but secretly introduce cyanide into the holy water it will become an instrument of ruin and perdition.

Peace in Christ,

David

Today’s homily was about evil. Every bishop was supposed to have a letter written by their bishop read at mass. It talked about evil and the forms that it takes. The deacon was very clear that this health care law provision it was forcing on the Catholic church was wrong. He went on to say that anyone participating in keeping this law was committing a mortal sin.

And it is funny how you put it, he mentioned the devil appearing in many different ways and the we as Catholics had to take a stand. He mentioned the Obama administration specifically as trying to take our religious liberty away and how slippery a slope it was.

 

[davidmlamb]

Perhaps you should learn the Church’s teachings on these things before telling us conservatives what the Church teaches, particularly on random issues which are arguable in implementation. Allow me to put pennies on your liberal train tracks
.

You start out telling Catholics “Perhaps you should learn the Church’s teachings on these things before telling us conservatives what the Church teaches, particularly on random issues which are arguable in implementation.” And then you abandon Church teachings and replace it with your own godless rhetoric. Here is a lesson for you and our readers to read and ponder… for starters.

Catechism of the Catholic Church sections 2401-2436 and 1897-1912.

There is no need for me to make a commentary on these teaching because they interpret themselves. I simply ask our reading audience to read what the Church teaches and compare it to your right wing rhetoric.

David

 

[estesbob]

I am thinking that what Catholics in the USA need is a Pastoral Letter addressed to those in the political/cultural camp known as the “Conservatives.”

I envision that this letter would, above all, make clear that the Catholic Church does NOT fully endorse or agree with everything that is high on the agenda of Conservatives, and does not accept or approve of all the theories, philosophies, motives, ideologies that are an accepted and popular part of the Conservative Movement in the USA.

I think many Conservatives feel that the Catholic Church, and God, is 100% on their side in their cold war with Liberals. I think that my be true of some individual priests, and maybe even a few bishops. But, it is not true for the pope and bishops of the Catholic Church as a whole, and they constitute the true and real Teaching Authority.

Many Conservatives really are firmly opposed the Catholic Church’s teaching on Labor Unions (a Labor Union called Solidarity in Communist Poland brought an end to Communism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, thank God), the Minimum Wage (aka, Just Wage), Global Government, Social Medical Insurance, the Death Penalty, sometimes the Just War theory (supplanted by the theory of American Exceptionalism in the minds of some Conservatives), and other matters as well.

Many people were deeply dismayed when a prominent Conservative who is also a Catholic, George Weigel, wrote and published a scathing denunciation of Pope Benedict’s encyclical letter “Caritas in Veritate.” Read about it here: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100002538/george-weigels-intemperate-attack-on-benedicts-incoherent-encyclical/

I see no need for a Pastoral Letter to the Liberals, since Liberals and everyone else already knows of their radical rejectioni of many parts of Catholic teaching (on abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, divorce and remarriage, euthanasia, etc.

A “Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives” would provide a lot of clarification, I think. It could also cover things that the Catholic Church teachings and the Conservative Movement have in common, which are many. But it would make clear that the Conservative Movement is not a Catholic movement, and the Catholic Church is not “one with” the Conservative Movement, or in service to the Conservative Movement, nor is the Conservative Movement in service to the Catholic Church (how can it be, when so many of its leaders dissent from Catholic teachings?)

What do you think? Would like to see and read a “Pastoral Letter to the Conservatives”? Would it be good for souls, for America?

Actually the Church neither endorses or opposes the conservative approach to the issues you mention. You are tyring to raise valid political differences on how to approach these issues to the level of Doctrine. When the Church does see a political philosophy that is in opposition to Church teaching it speaks forcefully. For instance:

*“How can one morally accept laws that permit the killing of a human being not yet born, but already alive in the mother’s womb? The right to life becomes an exclusive prerogative of adults who even manipulate legislatures in order to carry out their own plans and pursue their own interests.”
Letter to Families , John Paul II, 21 (1994).
*

 

[estesbob]

You start out telling Catholics “Perhaps you should learn the Church’s teachings on these things before telling us conservatives what the Church teaches, particularly on random issues which are arguable in implementation.” And then you abandon Church teachings and replace it with your own godless rhetoric. Here is a lesson for you and our readers to read and ponder… for starters.

Catechism of the Catholic Church sections 2401-2436 and 1897-1912.

There is no need for me to make a commentary on these teaching because they interpret themselves. I simply ask our reading audience to read what the Church teaches and compare it to your right wing rhetoric.

David

Interesting. 2401 Demands respect for private property-sounds like a conservative principle to me.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

A swipe at American “Conservatives” and the failure to understand the practical impossibility of knowing what is a “just wage” everywhere, among other things – tackled many times already. More attention to the teaching and fewer assumptions would stand posters well.

It’s good to see that “theology” has now been dropped as a description for the economic principles of cause and effect developed by the Catholic Late Scholastics as there is the clear affirmation of the free market by Bl John Paul II in Centesimus Annus, as well as the clear confirmation by Benedict XVI in *Caritas in Veritate *that “Society does not have to protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso facto to entail the death of authentically human relations…Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social responsibility.”
Correct.
How bizarre. Anyone seeing the various, and considerably different, economic proposals from the candidates could hardly conclude “what the Republican party is really after”, as a Party. That the candidates are against real Catholic Social Teaching on the economy as such seems also very strange.

I was thinking that Centesimus Annus might actually articulate these issues as raised in the OP and in the Title of the OP.

 

[jonbhorton]

I strongly agree with you. In fact I will be bold enough to say that conservatism as it has evolved in today is an evil spirit desguised as an angel of light and is a diabolical seduction of the soul. It does not serve God but it serves self and is the spirit of rebellion. Yes such a pastoral letter will be polarizing but it will be the Church speaking the wisdom of God to the rulers and authorities in the heavelnly realm (Ephes 3:10). Such a letter will seperate the sheep from the goats but most of all it will call many souls who have been seduced by this abominbable evil out of the darkness and back into the light. Let us never forget that the devil is as a roaring lion seeking whom he might devour. Holy Water is Holy but secretly introduce cyanide into the holy water it will become an instrument of ruin and perdition.

Peace in Christ,

David

Funny, but, today’s homily for our parish was blasting, by name, liberalism, marxism, and the Deism of a few of the Founding Fathers. You would not believe how many people I heard practically running up to the Deacon and thanking him, how many people who are conservative, recognize the same evil in the liberal philosophy which espouses the deracination of the Church from charity in lieu of bigger government.

Make your choice, who do you want helping the people: the Church or the government?

If you chose the Church, welcome to the conservative side, because anytime you bring the government in for such a purpose, it historically ends badly and almost without exception. The only exceptions are when the government has actually deferred back to the Church and makes sure the government is seen as helping the Church as another entity, rather than the government becoming an entity which usurps that which is rightly belonging to the Church.

Here’s a hint: the ultimate expression of the People’s will, if it be the will of God, is through the Church and the Church only. If it shine through the darkness of a government, the people are stronger than the government, and thus the government is in its correct place- subject to the people.

Your argument, and the OP’s argument, again, is entirely emotional and totally lacks understanding of the point, methods, and end-state goal of charity- to build the Kingdom of Christ by loving others as ourselves and at no time offending God on purpose.

When you figure out how a bunch of criminals, thieves, drug addicts, and adulterers who promote the continued practice of abortion from a lectern wearing a pretty suit, using a teleprompter, and slick rhetoric which says nothing about the evil methods it will use to accomplish the best for the people, i.e. politicians, let me know. In the mean time, don’t spill the kool-aid on your shirt, it stains.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m pretty sure we can all agree that your choice in this instance would be prudential; neither choice is intrinsically evil.
Of course you have a personal choice to make. My point here is solely that I cannot condemn as immoral whichever choice you make. Since neither choice involves intrinsic evil and since I cannot know the intent behind your choice I have no grounds to make a moral judgment of your actions. I think this point is true of nearly all political issues. I am not saying one cannot behave immorally in supporting a specific position on (e.g.) the minimum wage, all I’m saying is that no matter what position someone takes there is no justification for others to judge that position as immoral. This is why it is incorrect to claim that one’s political opinions are supported by Church teaching. With the exception of about five issues (all involving intrinsic evil) the Church has no position whatever on the specific means to be employed to achieve the guidelines she proclaims (feed the hungry, heal the sick …).

Ender

I agree with your main point. What I don’t get is what you are saying about the exception of 5 intrinsic evils. On one hand you said that the Church narrowly defines what our response to 5 intrinsic evils must be, but then when I give an example of a possible response to the evil of abortion (namely, attending a march for life) you say that our participation is a prudential judgement. So I don’t see how you are treating the intrinsic evil of abortion any differently than the need to feed the hungry - insofar as what our response must be.

My understanding of the concept of intrinsic evil is that it is something that can never under any circumstances be excused because it is evil by its very nature. But that is a long way from saying that our response to that evil is narrowly proscribed. I am not allowed to believe that abortion is sometimes OK, but I am allowed to exercise my own judgement as to exactly how I am going to combat abortion.

 

[dmelosi]

I agree with your main point. What I don’t get is what you are saying about the exception of 5 intrinsic evils. On one hand you said that the Church narrowly defines what our response to 5 intrinsic evils must be, but then when I give an example of a possible response to the evil of abortion (namely, attending a march for life) you say that our participation is a prudential judgement. So I don’t see how you are treating the intrinsic evil of abortion any differently than the need to feed the hungry - insofar as what our response must be.

My understanding of the concept of intrinsic evil is that it is something that can never under any circumstances be excused because it is evil by its very nature. But that is a long way from saying that our response to that evil is narrowly proscribed. I am not allowed to believe that abortion is sometimes OK, but I am allowed to exercise my own judgement as to exactly how I am going to combat abortion.

How are you fighting it?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

How are you fighting it?

That, sir, is none of your business.

 

[jonbhorton]

That, sir, is none of your business.

Um, how so? You’re the one who posited that you want to reconcile what is meant by fighting abortion and the causes related to it in a manner which Holy Mother Church would approve of. That, coupled with your answer, implies admission of doing something. Thus, you are claiming a work for the Faith. Implication: you are faithful, and thus, have faith. Where is this work of which you boast for your faith? Where is your public witness in the matter? What light are you bringing into the darkness of the world?

As a Christian seeking to better my own walk, and support others’ where and when I can, I for one would like to hear of your method so I may either apply it through the filter of my moral conscience, or otherwise support your effort for the glorification of Our Lord, Jesus Christ in whatever way I can in through the same filter.

That said, if it involves being a possible hit on a swipe for explosives residue, just keep pleadin’ da fif.