"Presidential Candidate Comparison List." --from Florida Conference of Catholic Bishops. (Summary of Differences between positions of Biden and Trump)

[KMC]

KMC:

LeafByNiggle:

Completely true. But we are not judging the morality of human acts. We are judging the morality of various policies when we vote.

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.

Example: People claimed Trump’s policy limiting of people from certain countries was xenophobic and / or racist. If it truly was done with that motive it would be immoral. If Trump truly believes he’s doing it for the common good (health, safety, etc), then it can be moral (would still need to consider the object and the circumstance).

Be careful…we might be using different definitions / talking past each other (which I don’t want to do). The criteria I’m using are straight out of Catholic morality book. In order for an action or implementation of a policy to be morally good, the object, intent and circumstance must all be good. In your example, I think we could agree the object is so wrong, that the intent is moot.

 

[Ender]

That is a matter of prudential judgement. There is nothing wrong with the bishops giving us theirs.

Yes, there is. When bishops speak out on political issues they reduce themselves to being just another political advocacy group. They blur the lines between what is moral teaching and what is personal, political opinion.

"By issuing policy statements on matters that lie beyond their specific competence, and that pertain rather to experts in secular disciplines, the bishops diminish their own credibility in speaking about matters with which they are specially charged as spiritual leaders of the church.” (Cardinal Dulles)

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.

They talk less about abortion than they do about immigration. They have done very little to suggest the latter is not at least as important as the former.

Any moral issue justifies the bishops’ involvement. No issue about morals should ever be off limits.

That isn’t the question. Since there is no moral question involved with most political issues, there really is nothing that justifies their involvement. What I was asking is: what is the moral purpose behind creating the list in the first place?

If we were voting on whether to proceed with the Tuskegee experiment today…

But we aren’t, and returning to this issue simply evades the one I raised. Where is the immoral proposal that justifies the bishops calling immigration a moral issue?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Example: People claimed Trump’s policy limiting of people from certain countries was xenophobic and / or racist. If it truly was done with that motive it would be immoral. If Trump truly believes he’s doing it for the common good (health, safety, etc), then it can be moral (would still need to consider the object and the circumstance).

Counter example: If the doctors performing the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment truly believed it was more important to learn the effects of syphilis for the common good and future treatments, maybe the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment might still be moral, and if people had an opportunity to vote on the experiment itself, the voters would be unable to reject it on moral grounds without inquiring into the intent of the doctors. Really???

 

[KMC]

KMC:

Example: People claimed Trump’s policy limiting of people from certain countries was xenophobic and / or racist. If it truly was done with that motive it would be immoral. If Trump truly believes he’s doing it for the common good (health, safety, etc), then it can be moral (would still need to consider the object and the circumstance).

Counter example: If the doctors performing the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment truly believed it was more important to learn the effects of syphilis for the common good and future treatments, maybe the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment might still be moral, and if people had an opportunity to vote on the experiment itself, the voters would be unable to reject it on moral grounds without inquiring into the intent of the doctors. Really???

I would contend the object of the act, giving people syphilis, rendered the act immoral.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

KMC:

Example: People claimed Trump’s policy limiting of people from certain countries was xenophobic and / or racist. If it truly was done with that motive it would be immoral. If Trump truly believes he’s doing it for the common good (health, safety, etc), then it can be moral (would still need to consider the object and the circumstance).

Counter example: If the doctors performing the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment truly believed it was more important to learn the effects of syphilis for the common good and future treatments, maybe the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment might still be moral, and if people had an opportunity to vote on the experiment itself, the voters would be unable to reject it on moral grounds without inquiring into the intent of the doctors. Really???

I would contend the object of the act, giving people syphilis, rendered the act immoral.

It depends on circumstances. If instead of syphilis, it was covid-19, and if the purpose of administering the infection was to “challenge test” a promising new vaccine because 400,000 people had already died, it might not be immoral to administer the infection if we thought the vaccine had a good chance of saving them. Similarly, the circumstances surrounding a restrictive immigration policy might be such that objectively US citizens were in grave danger of what immigrants might do, then it might be moral to restrict them. But if the circumstances are such that the danger was objectively just not there (in the view of the voter) that voter would be justified in opposing a candidate who was proposing that restrictive policy, regardless of what the candidate himself thinks the danger from immigrants is. The point is we can separate the morality of a leader promoting a policy from the morality of the policy itself. We do not need to consider if the leader is performing a moral act. We do need to consider if we are performing an immoral act by approving that policy. This is exactly the argument that is used in the subject of abortion, when the morality of a liberal abortion policy depends only on the policy itself, and not the intent of the candidate promoting it. That candidate may think he has very good reasons for supporting a liberal policy. But if we approve of that leader because of his good intentions without considering the morality of the issue ourselves, we are still engaged in an immoral act in approving that policy.

 

[Ender]

I would contend the object of the act, giving people syphilis, rendered the act immoral.

I would too, but this question is just a trip down the rabbit hole; it is a distraction from the real question, which is: what makes immigration et al moral issues? Where is the moral choice? What makes supporting proposal X a sin?

This is no small point. We regularly see claims that neither party is very good following church doctrine, with one good on some things (abortion, euthanasia…) and the other better on social justice issues (poverty, immigration…). The problem with this claim is that there is no church position on how to address poverty, or how to resolve our immigration problems.

Let’s stay focused on what is important for this thread. The bishops put out an election list: what justifies their involvement in political issues that have no moral component?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This is the depressing output one has come to expect of bishops generally.

I don’t know which “one” you refer to here. I, for one, am supportive of bishops, generally. I think most Catholics are. Are you the only one who expects depressing output from bishops?

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.

So, which of those involve moral questions -

I see. So you find in depressing when bishops address these issues just because they do not fall without your personal and narrow definition of moral issues. The rest of the Catholic world considers them all moral issues.

what makes immigration et al moral issues?

the fact that they involve right and wrong. Scripture has a lot to say about treatment of foreigners.

The problem with this claim is that there is no church position on how to address poverty, or how to resolve our immigration problems.

It is not unusual for the Church to illuminate moral issues without simultaneously layout out a 5-point plan on preferred policies to address them.

The bishops put out an election list: what justifies their involvement in political issues that have no moral component?

The fact that they are moral issues.

 

[Victoria33]

I’m supportive of the Bishops too,

US bishops tell Catholic voters abortion is ‘preeminent issue’ in 2020 election - LifeSite

I would too, but this question is just a trip down the rabbit hole; it is a distraction from the real question, which is: what makes immigration et al moral issues? Where is the moral choice? What makes supporting proposal X a sin?

This is no small point. We regularly see claims that neither party is very good following church doctrine, with one good on some things (abortion, euthanasia…) and the other better on social justice issues (poverty, immigration…). The problem with this claim is that there is no church position on how to address poverty, or how to resolve our immigration problems.

Let’s stay focused on what is important for this thread. The bishops put out an election list: what justifies their involvement in political issues that have no moral component?

It’s a broad statement, therefore, I have little trouble with this. We have already been told for example, what the preeminent issue is.

 

[adamhovey1988]

Abortion is the 800-pound gorilla that pretty much drives American politics in our day

I’d be on board with a lot of environmentalist causes (though, funerals for glaciers are a bit much), if it was not for the (ironic) support they have for abortion.

 

[Ender]

I don’t know which “one” you refer to here. I, for one, am supportive of bishops, generally. I think most Catholics are. Are you the only one who expects depressing output from bishops?

Surely you have read enough of my comments to understand the context of this one. The bishops’ continued involvement in political issues is, to me, quite depressing.

I see. So you find in depressing when bishops address these issues just because they do not fall without your personal and narrow definition of moral issues. The rest of the Catholic world considers them all moral issues.

I certainly find it disappointing when you ignore the distinctions I made about that list, where I identified those issues which are moral, those that can be depending on the aspect being discussed…and those that are not. Nor, other than your own assertion, have you tried to demonstrate how “my” definition of moral issues is either personal or narrow, as opposed to accurate.

Ender:

what makes immigration et al moral issues?

the fact that they involve right and wrong. Scripture has a lot to say about treatment of foreigners.

Where does Scripture say a word about building a wall, or how many immigrants each country is obliged to allow? Church doctrines are generic; political policies are specific.

Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine.

Cardinal Dulles said that about capital punishment, but it applies even more to virtually all political issues. This is the point: when the bishops take public stands on political issues it is generally unfortunate.

The fact that they are moral issues.

I try to present arguments to support my assertions, You are encouraged to do likewise, otherwise discussion is not really possible.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Abortion is the 800-pound gorilla that pretty much drives American politics in our day

I’d be on board with a lot of environmentalist causes (though, funerals for glaciers are a bit much), if it was not for the (ironic) support they have for abortion.

I am “on board” with a lot of liberal and Democratic initiatives, including environmental ones — I recycle almost to an OCD level, and I’d like to install solar panels on both our homes, but finances, logistics, and family objections don’t allow it — but the Democratic pro-choice position keeps me from voting for their candidates.

I think I’ll pass on the funerals for glaciers.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I don’t know which “one” you refer to here. I, for one, am supportive of bishops, generally. I think most Catholics are. Are you the only one who expects depressing output from bishops?

Surely you have read enough of my comments to understand the context of this one. The bishops’ continued involvement in political issues is, to me, quite depressing.

I understand that you find it depressing. I find it quite reasonable when those political issues are also moral issues, as I’m sure you would agree when it comes to abortion or gay marriage. I do not find the argument convincing that only the “intrinsic evils” in political issues are proper for our Church to address. Look at the very political (and non-intrinsically evil) issues addressed by St. Oscar Romero.

Ender:

LeafByNiggle:

I see. So you find in depressing when bishops address these issues just because they do not fall without your personal and narrow definition of moral issues. The rest of the Catholic world considers them all moral issues.

I certainly find it disappointing when you ignore the distinctions I made about that list, where I identified those issues which are moral, those that can be depending on the aspect being discussed…and those that are not. Nor, other than your own assertion, have you tried to demonstrate how “my” definition of moral issues is either personal or narrow, as opposed to accurate.

The demonstration is the same fact that you are protesting - the fact that the bishops address it. As for the Cardinal Dulles quote, he is referring to specific political applications that are outside the expertise of the Church. He is not referring to what the bishops are doing when they present the list of issues in question. That list did not recommend any specific solutions or preferred positions. It just laid out what the positions of the candidates are that the faithful should know when applying their prudential judgement.

Ender:

what makes immigration et al moral issues?

the fact that they involve right and wrong. Scripture has a lot to say about treatment of foreigners.

Where does Scripture say a word about building a wall…

Where to the Florida Bishops say whether a wall should be built?

, or how many immigrants each country is obliged to allow? Church doctrines are generic; political policies are specific.

Yes, and the bishops are reminding the faithful of those doctrines and giving them the tools to judge with an informed conscience.

 

[Ender]

I do not find the argument convincing that only the “intrinsic evils” in political issues are proper for our Church to address. Look at the very political (and non-intrinsically evil) issues addressed by St. Oscar Romero.

For a bishop in the US there are no issues such as those experienced by Archbishop Romero in El Salvador. You can make your point by identifying a comparable issue they face. In this country such issues deal with intrinsic evils only. Immigration is not such an issue.

The demonstration is the same fact that you are protesting - the fact that the bishops address it.

That the bishops do something is an argument that it would be expected to be appropriate, but is no argument that it is.

That list did not recommend any specific solutions or preferred positions. It just laid out what the positions of the candidates are that the faithful should know when applying their prudential judgement.

My problem with the list is that it “just laid out” the candidates positions without making any distinction between them, and putting abortion on the same footing as immigration and health care access is disappointing. It is not, regrettably, surprising.

Where do the Florida Bishops say whether a wall should be built?

“Immigration” is not an issue, let alone a moral one. Whether or not a wall should be built is an issue, and there is no moral aspect whatever in determining whether it is a good or a bad idea.

Yes, and the bishops are reminding the faithful of those doctrines and giving them the tools to judge with an informed conscience.

And if two people come to opposite conclusions how do you determine which one has made an immoral judgment? To say that one proposal is immoral is not to judge the proposal, rather it is a judgment of the intent of the person who has proposed it, and these are judgments we are forbidden to make. If the action is not intrinsically evil, and the intent is not evil (cannot be assumed), then all that is left are the circumstances, and how does a disagreement over that become immoral?

 

[Victoria33]

I understand that you find it depressing. I find it quite reasonable when those political issues are also moral issues, as I’m sure you would agree when it comes to abortion or gay marriage. I do not find the argument convincing that only the “intrinsic evils” in political issues are proper for our Church to address. Look at the very political (and non-intrinsically evil) issues addressed by St. Oscar Romero

This idealism sounds good. One can not make a clear cut case, we are running poor immigration policy, no clear definition.

Now, the Democrats have pretty stuck their foot into Infanticide, they seem overly influenced by Planned Parenthood. All of this moral posturing should be seen for what it is. A support for some rather negative policies to use polite words of the Democrats, as if we are suppose to expect some compassionate view.

It’s really beyond “intrinsic evils” and an aw shucks attitude about this. This is now, really evil in our time. If a person wants to support it, so be it. But it should be seen for what it is.

Democrats Vote to Support Infanticide, Oppose Caring for Babies Born Alive After Abortion - LifeNews.com

I don’t think any of us should forget what now is being pushed and then, pushing some argument “my position is justified”, okay, maybe it is but let’s not forget this other…

The Bishops spoke in 2020 and talked of the most preeminent issue. So, I’m not just going to concede, hey, all of this is equal. That’s not what their statement says.

Also, somehow, a deal was on the table to build the wall and give undocumented persons a pathway to citizenship. It was like the gang of eight bill a few years ago. Remind me of who would not give a pathway to citiizenshp under those circumstances. I can already hear most likely, that it was justified not to vote for that.

 

[JimG]

I found Patrick Coffin’s analysis to have better moral clarity.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

For a bishop in the US there are no issues such as those experienced by Archbishop Romero in El Salvador.

That is a matter of degree, and a matter of prudential judgement. There probably are injustices occurring in Central America comparable to what what happening in El Salvador. Is the fact that it is not going on in our own city a reason to ignore those injustices?

My problem with the list is that it “just laid out” the candidates positions without making any distinction between them, and putting abortion on the same footing as immigration and health care access is disappointing. It is not, regrettably, surprising.

Abortion was at the top of the list - in the pre-eminent position. How did you want it to be presented? In 40-point font?

“Immigration” is not an issue, let alone a moral one.

The bishops and most other Catholics believe otherwise.

And if two people come to opposite conclusions how do you determine which one has made an immoral judgment?

You don’t. That’s the nature of prudential judgement.

The Bishops spoke in 2020 and talked of the most preeminent issue.

If you are going to give authoritative recognition to the bishop’s statement that
US Bishops:

The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority because it directly attacks life itself, because it takes place within the sanctuary of the family, and because of the number of lives destroyed.

then you would also have to give authoritative recognition to the very next sentence in that letter:
US Bishops in the very next sentence:

At the same time, we cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats to human life and dignity such as racism, the environmental crisis, poverty and the death penalty.

which is exactly what the Florida Bishops did.

 

[Ender]

That is a matter of degree, and a matter of prudential judgement. There probably are injustices occurring in Central America comparable to what what happening in El Salvador. Is the fact that it is not going on in our own city a reason to ignore those injustices?

Are there injustices happening world-wide that deserve to be condemned? Sure. Should bishops speak out about them? Absolutely. Are such injustices occurring in the US? No. Should bishops speak out on normal political issues? In my opinion, no. I see no justification for a bishop to give his political perspective on an issue in the guise of moral guidance; I find that inappropriate.

Abortion was at the top of the list - in the pre-eminent position.

There was nothing to suggest the list was ordered by importance. Given that Religious Liberty was at the bottom I can at least hope it wasn’t ordered that way. What should we assume about that? It is important because it made the list? It’s not important because it’s at the bottom? Should we assume euthanasia is not important because it didn’t make the list at all? Where is the “guidance” in all this?

And if two people come to opposite conclusions how do you determine which one has made an immoral judgment?

You don’t. That’s the nature of prudential judgement.

I agree… but if neither has made an immoral judgment, where is the sin? And if there is no sin in choosing either side how can matters of prudential judgment be moral issues? This is precisely the point I’ve been making, and it is why “immigration” is not a moral issue.

The threat of abortion remains our preeminent priority…
you would also have to give authoritative recognition to the very next sentence in that letter…
At the same time, we cannot dismiss or ignore other serious threats…

Indeed you do have to consider all that was said, because “the very next sentence” pretty much eviscerates the significance of the first, “which is exactly what the Florida Bishops did.” After all, we are not one issue voters.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I see no justification for a bishop to give his political perspective on an issue in the guise of moral guidance.

The list in the OP did not give any political judgements.

There was nothing to suggest the list was ordered by importance.

Nor was there anything to suggest the list implied equality among all issues listed.

Should we assume euthanasia is not important because it didn’t make the list at all?

Perhaps it is because neither candidate has taken a strong position on euthanasia?

I agree… but if neither has made an immoral judgment, where is the sin?

I did not say neither has made an immoral judgement. It is certainly possible for people to make an immoral prudential judgement. I said that it is not up to others to decide that. Only God can decide that. If you need an example, consider the judgement of what to do if someone owes you money and has not paid you back. Should you sue that person if he does not pay? Or should you just forgive the debt? That is clearly a prudential judgement, because there are times when either one might be appropriate. There is no doctrine that says which choice is moral. Yet Matthew 18:23-35 shows that God can indeed judge when one has decided this prudential question wrongly. Perhaps we should strike these verses from the bible because they give the false impression that the Church is condemning all lawsuits to recover debts? That is sort of what you are saying when you insist that the Church not remind us of moral issues that are also prudential judgements.

Indeed you do have to consider all that was said, because “ the very next sentence ” pretty much eviscerates the significance of the first, “ which is exactly what the Florida Bishops did. ” After all, we are not one issue voters.

Are you suggesting that it is self-contradictory? Then I guess we have to throw out the whole thing rather than pick and choose which of the two “contradictory” interpretations to take. I am good with that too.

 

[AlbMagno]

It seems to me that the environment, health care access, immigration, and poverty are indeed problems that need guidance from Bishops, and are moral problems among other things.

See, for example, Laudato Si.

 

[Ender]

It is certainly possible for people to make an immoral prudential judgement.

Explain this; how is it possible?

I said that it is not up to others to decide that.

Isn’t this what the bishops are doing when they claim something is a moral issue? Isn’t this merely a judgment against those who take the contrary political position? If immigration is a moral issue you should be able to give a (realistic) example of a sinful policy, or at least explain how someone can sin in making a considered judgment about what ought to be done.

Are you suggesting that it is self-contradictory?

I think it’s worse than that: it gives moral cover for whatever choice one has already made. It doesn’t provide guidance; it provides justification.