Lots of people claim these are moral issue but so far no one has actually explained how this can be so. Why is X a moral issue while Y is not? What are your criteria for determining which are moral issues and which are not?
I did. It’s in Matthew 18:23-35.LeafByNiggle:
Explain this; how is it possible?
And what does this show? A selfish person? A mean person? Whatever, it is a judgment of the person. Clearly people can act immorally, but that doesn’t mean the problem they are trying to resolve is a moral issue. What is the moral question involved in resolving the “immigration” issue?
That’s the problem, they are proposing solutions. If they limited themselves to raising immigration as a problem requiring serious attention I would be fine with it, but when they suggest we should do this, and not do that, they cross the line. For example, from Bishop Seitz of El Paso:
I have never accepted that bishops should express their political opinions publicly
Every choice a man makes gives him the opportunity to act morally or immorally, but that does not mean the problems he seeks to solve contain moral questions. If I’m helping my neighbor get his car started there is no moral choice involved in figuring out the problem even though I can act immorally by suggesting he steal someone else’s battery to replace his own. This is not a moral issue, any more than is immigration. The possibility of individual misbehavior does not mean that the problems one seeks to solve are therefore moral.
I disagree, if the problem has a moral dimension and therefore needs a moral analysis, it is in part a moral issue. I think this would be obvious with the problems you mentioned, which are partially political and, as such, moral.
Does fixing a car have a moral dimension? Is there a moral choice to be made in determining whether the battery is dead or the alternator is shot? That the possibility exists for me to steal the necessary part from another car doesn’t make getting the car fixed a moral issue.
As the problem of fixing a car is more technical than anything.
The environmental problems we are debating are largely caused by human action, and inmigration is directly caused by a sum of human action. Poverty and health care access have a more unpredictable cause, but many times human action is also involved.
…based on the acts he performs. So it is really as judgement of the acts in that context, showing that those acts require moral discernment. That’s why we have Matthew 18, and that’s why we have the Presidential Candidate Comparison List.
The moral question is “what is just?”
You have a point on that statement from Bishop Seitz, but no such statement appeared in the list in the OP.
…except when those political opinions touch on matters involving good and evil?
The problem with the guide is that it totally neglects to provide any Catholic Church teachings which might impact the choice between the candidates and merely reiterates what the candidates propose or where they have stood on the issues.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 would say that is more the nature of the guide, not the problem with it. With the overabundance of lies on the internet, such a guide from a trusted source serves its own purpose, if not the same purpose the USCCB’ voter’s guide serves.
Apparently you have made up your mind that the misinformation on the Internet has at least some intention and maliciousness behind it.HarryStotle:
I would say that is more the nature of the guide, not the problem with it. With the overabundance of lies on the internet, such a guide from a trusted source serves its own purpose, if not the same purpose the USCCB’ voter’s guide serves.
Yes, much of it has.
I’m still looking for what makes something a moral issue, and it appears that your criterion is that “human action is involved”, but human action is involved in everything except acts of nature, so does this mean every decision is a moral choice? If so then fixing my car would be a moral issue, and I really don’t think this is where the bishops are going.
Doing what is just may be the objective but it is not a specific action taken. I assume that by “what is just” you mean what has the best consequences, but that is precisely the problem: we don’t know how things will turn out. We make assumptions, act, and hope for the best. Again, where is the sin in this? because if there is no sin involved in doing what one thinks will solve the problem, then the problem has no moral component.
How do you judge whether an act is immoral? The bishops have called immigration a moral issue. Give me an example of an immoral action with regard to that topic.
Is building a wall just? What is the “just” number of immigrants the US should take each year (to the nearest 10 thousand). Is exporting illegals just? How do we know what is just in these cases? Given that “justness” in particular instances is a judgment, how do we resolve different answers? Do we just claim that those who oppose us are unjust and move on? (Actually, this seems pretty much how things are done.)
Given that as yet no one has provided any reasonable explanation of what makes a political issue a moral concern I reject the assertion that the bishops’ political opinions do in fact touch on matters involving good and evil.
As I said before, that is a prudential judgement. The way I judge it for me may not be the same as the way you judge it for yourself, and that’s OK. It is still a moral issue because it involves right and wrong.LeafByNiggle:
How do you judge whether an act is immoral?
See above.
It might be. That depends. It is a prudential judgement. Some people might believe it is unjust. Others might not, even though both groups are basing their judgement on valid Catholic teaching.
See above.
See above.
The question should be not “how do we know,” but rather “how to I know.” And answer is to examine your informed conscience.
When faithful Catholics disagree on a public policy that needs to be decided communally and is not just an individual choice (such as how should our nation conduct immigration policy) then they should engage with each other and put forth their best argument to try to sway the other person or group. In our society that is done through our representative democracy and elected representatives. If the decision does not go that way we want, we are supposed to abide by the will of the society, provided that will does not require us to do evil, in which case we are required to refuse to cooperate. That is how we resolve decisions that must be made in common.
I have an easy way of knowing that - Church teaching. I am thinking of Laudato Si, and Fratelli Tutti.
If there is prudential judgment involved then differences of opinion are proper. Where is the issue of right and wrong, and how is the claim that your position is just and mine is unjust settled? That we differ on a matter of judgment is, as you said, OK, but if it is OK then how can there be sin?
I think this exactly captures my argument. There is no “might be” to the question of whether building a wall is just. Either it is or it isn’t, and personal opinions on the matter are irrelevant, nor can it be just for me and unjust for you. It cannot be both. It is intrinsic in the nature of the act. My supporting a wall might be sinful, but building the wall is not.
Morality is not dependent on group opinion. Yes, policies ought to be handled as you describe but not moral issues. You are exactly right about how public decisions ought to be made, but that in itself means this cannot be a moral issue, because for moral questions public opinion is irrelevant.
They speak for the church on matters of faith and morals. They assuredly do not speak for her on political issues. How do we tell when this law addresses a moral question, and that one does not? What are the criteria?