This is the depressing output one has come to expect of bishops generally. Here are the items on the list: abortion, death penalty, educational choice, environment, ethics in research, gender issues, health care access, immigration, poverty, racial equity, religious freedom.
All of them - with the common definition of the word “moral”. The fact that you have come to expect depressing outcome from our bishops is … disturbing.
What is the moral choice involved in deciding whether building a wall on the southern border is a good or a bad idea?
The moral issue involved in that decision is the basis on which the decision is made. If it is made with no regard for the plight of those that find themselves on the other side of that wall, or with no regard of how it affects the communities where the wall goes, there is a moral problem there.LeafByNiggle:
What is the moral choice involved in deciding whether building a wall on the southern border is a good or a bad idea?
I agree here. Perhaps they should have expounded a bit more on how to prioritize the issues.
And there it is. This is precisely why I so oppose the bishops involvement in political issues, because what it comes down to is not a question of judging proposals, but of judging the people who hold them.
It would be wonderful if the bishops made a clear distinction between issues that actually involve moral choices - which are indeed quite few - and the myriad political issues that involve no moral choice at all other than whether or not one will honestly try to find the best solution.
Would you agree that this form of political commentary from the bishops is typical? Is there anything unusual about it that sets it apart from the vast majority of previous comments? I think this is so common that most people would see nothing really different here. It seems of a piece with all their other comments.
One does not need to know the heart of the person making the policy to judge that the policy does not adequately take certain things into account. This is not an instance of judging a person. It is just an instance of judging the morality of a policy. For example, one does not need to know anything about what was in the hearts of those to decided to run the Tuskegee Syphilis Study to judge that it had an immoral basis. I don’t even know who those decision makers were. But I know it was an immoral decision. Maybe those involved did not even realize the immoral basis of their decision. Maybe they were totally innocent. I am not judging them. But I most certainly can judge the morality of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.LeafByNiggle:
And there it is. This is precisely why I so oppose the bishops involvement in political issues, because what it comes down to is not a question of judging proposals, but of judging the people who hold them.
Judging “ the basis on which the decision is made ” is something we are explicitly forbidden to do because we cannot know why a person does something.
They may be listing several areas, that are of concern to people of varying political philosophies, to keep from creating the impression (or to try to keep from doing this) that they are telling people how to vote based on abortion.
Depends if it can be cut through with a battery-powered Dremel in five minutes.
I would agree about not judging the person, however, the intent of the person making the act is a necessary component of determining the morality of human acts.Ender:
One does not need to know the heart of the person making the policy to judge that the policy does not adequately take certain things into account. This is not an instance of judging a person. It is just an instance of judging the morality of a policy.LeafByNiggle:
And there it is. This is precisely why I so oppose the bishops involvement in political issues, because what it comes down to is not a question of judging proposals, but of judging the people who hold them.
Judging “ the basis on which the decision is made ” is something we are explicitly forbidden to do because we cannot know why a person does something.
It is big, but not that big. Both conservatives and liberals have a lot of issues that drive them besides abortion, including tax policy, health care, affordable higher education, drug addiction, budget deficit, climate change, economic inequality, racism, illegal immigration. One only needs to listen to a typical Trump speech to see how little he talks about abortion compared to some of these other issues. He knows what is on people’s minds, and it is definitely more than abortion.
If you had read an article by an environmental activist you would have thought that the environment was the dominant issue, and if you had read an article by an NRA member you would have thought the dominant issue was gun control. It is not surprise that a pro-choice activist would give the impression that abortion rights was the only issue at stake.
Completely true. But we are not judging the morality of human acts. We are judging the morality of various policies when we vote.LeafByNiggle:
I would agree about not judging the person, however, the intent of the person making the act is a necessary component of determining the morality of human acts.Ender:
One does not need to know the heart of the person making the policy to judge that the policy does not adequately take certain things into account. This is not an instance of judging a person. It is just an instance of judging the morality of a policy.LeafByNiggle:
And there it is. This is precisely why I so oppose the bishops involvement in political issues, because what it comes down to is not a question of judging proposals, but of judging the people who hold them.
Judging “ the basis on which the decision is made ” is something we are explicitly forbidden to do because we cannot know why a person does something.
This is true. Case in point: At Kavanaugh’s hearing, Senators Hirono, Harris, Booker, Schumer, et al, railed about how his accuser must be believed. The tone of their questioning was accusatory and angry. Their point of view was that he absolutely attacked her…he was guilty of sexual assault by the word of the accuser. Fast forward to Joe Biden getting accused of sexual assault…any of those Senator’s express the same outrage? Nope. Harris said she believed Biden’s accuser, but apparently the alleged assault is not important…because Biden paid her off with the VP / soon-to-be President spot on the ticket.
True, but the intent of the person putting forth the policies are important to judging the morality of the policies.
I totally disagree. As I said with the Tuskegee Syphilis study, the person putting forth that study is irrelevant when judging the morality of the study the way it was conducted.LeafByNiggle:
True, but the intent of the person putting forth the policies are important to judging the morality of the policies.
Yes, this probably meets the threshold for judging a policy as immoral, but this highlights the issue: you have to search the past for an obviously immoral policy because such choices are not available today. Where is the comparable immoral policy with regard to immigration today? The bishops have repeatedly called this a moral issue, so where is the moral choice involved with any policy that has actually been proposed?
This is what I object to: they simply list eleven issues (or areas of concern) with no suggestion that they were of differing importance, thus implying an equivalence in importance between say abortion and immigration. And, as I said previously, they also imply a moral equivalence that does not exist. You have to ask: if they aren’t going to provide any specific guidance on voting, or discuss the issues, why are they listing them? Why did they choose those eleven? What about the issues they didn’t mention, like foreign policy? What moral purpose does this list serve that justifies the bishops involvement?
This would be a practical reason to oppose it, and one which the bishops are not really competent to make. It is not a moral question (which is really my point here).
If the action is intrinsically evil it can be judged on that basis alone, otherwise it is (primarily) the intent that determines whether an act is moral, as @KMC said…and it is the intent that cannot legitimately be judged.
That is a matter of prudential judgement. There is nothing wrong with the bishops giving us theirs. I know in the past you have objected that when they do that, the faithful may confuse such guidance with binding doctrine. That might be a small risk, but there is always a risk of being misunderstood. That should not prevent someone from speaking out.LeafByNiggle:
Yes, this probably meets the threshold for judging a policy as immoral, but this highlights the issue: you have to search the past for an obviously immoral policy because such choices are not available today.
That itself is an unjustified misunderstanding of the bishops’ guidance. They have stated many times the relative importance of abortion. They did not feel it was necessary to repeat this every single time they mention other issues. As a hypothetical, suppose the Tuskegee Syphilis Study were being done today, and the bishops were speaking out about the immorality of it, do you think would be absolutely necessary for them to add “Oh, and by the way, this is not as important as abortion.” ??? Of course not.
Any moral issue justifies the bishops’ involvement. No issue about morals should ever be off limits.
If we were voting on whether to proceed with the Tuskegee experiment today, we would not need to know anything about the intent of those promoting it. And it is not intrinsically evil because what makes it evil is the circumstances (no informed consent) and not the act of doing the experiment itself, which under different conditions might be a noble act of heroism.