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

[Ender]

I have an easy way of knowing that - Church teaching. I am thinking of Laudato Si, and Fratelli Tutti.

Which one says that building a wall is moral or immoral? I’m talking about specific, political proposals, not the generic problems the proposals are meant to resolve. Where are the doctrines that spell out exactly what laws need to be passed? That you cannot find because the church tells us what our goals should be but she is silent on the practical question of how to achieve them.

The ends are moral obligations. The means are practical guesses that, if made in good faith, are no more moral questions than deciding between this or that I-phone.

 

[AlbMagno]

The ends are moral obligations. The means are practical guesses that, if made in good faith, are no more moral questions than deciding between this or that I-phone.

I don’t know what your initial problem to the OP was, if we agree that the ends are moral obligations. The bishops aren’t even declaring anything with the list, but just compiling what the candidates say. The only selection or bias they introduce is which issues to list, in which all agree there are moral ends.

 

[Ender]

I don’t know what your initial problem to the OP was, if we agree that the ends are moral obligations. The bishops aren’t even declaring anything with the list, but just compiling what the candidates say. The only selection or bias they introduce is which issues to list, in which all agree there are moral ends.

In one sense every problem is a moral problem in that it forces us to choose whether to help or not. In that sense helping my neighbor fix his car is a moral obligation, but determining the problem and offering solutions is not.

I believe the bishops’ list includes moral questions only in the above sense, and that, like fixing a car, determining the problem and offering solutions is not a moral question for most of them. That is, they are serious problems, just not moral ones.

The reason I repeatedly object to the bishops’ action in categorizing a political issue as moral is that it encourages people to consider those who hold different positions to be not simply mistaken but immoral. After all, if it is a moral issue, and someone disagrees with a bishop, he is clearly a cafeteria Catholic in disagreement with the church. I really dislike that.

 

[AlbMagno]

But that list doesn’t even have a conclusion for every problem, it doesn’t say which candidate is “right”, it only says what the candidate says!

 

[LeafByNiggle]

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?

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.

Yes, policies ought to be handled as you describe but not moral issues.

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?

These questions have already been answered. If you want different answers, ask different questions.

They all go to the nature of prudential judgement. If you understand prudential judgement and its application to moral theology, you already know the answers to these questions.

 

[pnewton]

Which one says that building a wall is moral or immoral?

None, but that is not the topic. Change the topic, then the response changes. However, any action based on belief that most of a group of people are rapists and murderers, we need more white Scandinavians, or come from s-----hole countries, is seriously immoral.

“Prudential judgement” does not in any way eliminate moral responsibility. Sin remains sin. This is what Jesus tried to teach to those who clung to legalism in his days. Moral answers to political problems must start with a moral heart. Only then can differences be said to be a matter of prudence, a gift of the Holy Spirit, not the mere “opinion” that is presented here.

 

[Ender]

They all go to the nature of prudential judgement. If you understand prudential judgement and its application to moral theology, you already know the answers to these questions.

Exactly, they all go to the nature of prudential judgment, which pretty much excludes the validity of calling any position immoral because it is not the position itself that is immoral, but, presumably, it is the person who holds that position.

The argument is made that making a prudential judgment is an act of prudence, which is a moral virtue, therefore prudential judgments are moral choices. To the extent that we desire to make the right choice this is true, but in figuring out what that choice ought to be in a particular situation, it is not. There is no moral choice involved involved in determining the best way to proceed. Ask any parent. That they want to do what is best for their children is no help at all in figuring out what they ought to do in this or that particular instance. Some choices are simple, but for those that are not simply wanting to do right is no guide at all in finding the right thing to do.

None, but that is not the topic. Change the topic, then the response changes. However, any action based on belief that most of a group of people are rapists and murderers, we need more white Scandinavians, or come from s-----hole countries, is seriously immoral.

I think this exactly makes my point. The actions are not challenged; what is attacked is the basis for the action, that is, the intent. I have maintained for years that this is why the bishops involvement in politics is harmful: it encourages just this type of personal judgment even though this is precisely the kind of judgment we are forbidden to make.

Moral answers to political problems must start with a moral heart.

Here it is again. This is the “You disagree with me because you don’t have a moral heart” accusation that is so prevalent and so common we no longer recognize it as expressly condemned. It has become a source of pride that we are not like “them”. We sit with the sheep, and not with the goats. But why should people not think this way? After all, this is precisely what is suggested when the bishops insist that (e.g.) immigration is a moral issue. Somebody has to be evil (and we all know who they are).

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

They all go to the nature of prudential judgement. If you understand prudential judgement and its application to moral theology, you already know the answers to these questions.

Exactly, they all go to the nature of prudential judgment, which pretty much excludes the validity of calling any position immoral…

Then you don’t understand prudential judgement. When a person employs his informed conscience to arrive at a decision of what policy to pursue, that person is making a moral judgement. That judgement may be objectively wrong or right in the eyes of God, but it cannot be proven to be objectively wrong or right directly from Church teaching. Nevertheless, a person is free act based on that judgement.

This is most easily seen by looking at examples that are somewhat removed from the hot-button issues of today. For example, the forced relocation of the Cherokee Indians from their homelands to what is now Oklahoma in 1838 can be judged as immoral by prudential judgement. If the Catholic Church of 1838 had published a voter’s guide in 1838 they would have been within their rights to publicize the fact that it was going on so that the faithful would have the information to which they could apply their prudential judgment and advocate with their elected officials for a more compassionate solution to the “Indian Problem”. The same could be said of Germany in the 1930’s with the forced relocation of Jews. Both of these are very political issues. Both of these issues that do not involve intrinsic evils. Yet your argument that the Church should never meddle in politics would say that it would have been a big mistake for the Church to shine a spotlight on the Trail of Tears, or the Jewish Ghettos. The fact that one may not believe that any such situation exists today is itself a prudential judgement, and faithful Catholics can still disagree with that claim.

 

[Naga]

None, but that is not the topic. Change the topic, then the response changes. However, any action based on belief that most of a group of people are rapists and murderers, we need more white Scandinavians, or come from s-----hole countries, is seriously immoral.

But, if it is based on information that shows that they are all criminals (inherent in the act of breaking immigration laws), that they are disproportionately more likely to commit violent crime, and the prudential judgment that we need to get our own house in order before we continue to help others, would it be morally permissible?

 

[Ender]

When a person employs his informed conscience to arrive at a decision of what policy to pursue, that person is making a moral judgement.

This is the point up for debate. We’ll see if your argument proves your assertion.

For example, the forced relocation of the Cherokee Indians from their homelands to what is now Oklahoma in 1838 can be judged as immoral by prudential judgement.

People support abortion for prudential reasons; the act you describe is no different. Those judgments were about intrinsic evils, and are thus immoral because the object is immoral. JPII refers to exactly this kind of act in Veritatis Splendor:

The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts:… whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery…

In this instance, deportation refers to the wholesale relocation of people such as was done by Germany in WWII. This would include what was done to the Cherokees. This prudential judgment was immoral because the object was intrinsically evil.

The same could be said of Germany in the 1930’s with the forced relocation of Jews. Both of these are very political issues. Both of these issues that do not involve intrinsic evils.

According to Gaudium et Spes these were intrinsic evils.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts:… whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation , slavery…

Do you think Veritatis Spendor implied that the deportation of alien criminals is an intrinsic evil? In any case, relocation within the country is not deportation. There can be many valid and compassionate reasons for mandatory relocation, such as an environmental disaster that renders a locale uninhabitable. I seriously doubt that the intention of the Church was to declare all relocations as intrinsically evil. I think it applies to relocations from a good place to a worse place. That is degrading to the dignity of the human person. Relocating families from Love Canal is not.

But this is really getting away from the main question, which is the role of the Church in matters of prudential judgment. Since we are in agreement that decisions about immigration policy, etc., are a matter of prudential judgement, all that remains is to determine the role of the Church in matters of prudential judgement.

For this one can turn to the Gospels - an essential part of Church teaching - and just look for instances of Jesus himself teaching about matters of prudential judgement. Here are just a few:

• The Parable of the Good Samaritan.
• Dangers of riches (camel through eye of a needle)
• Hypocrisy of Scribes and Pharisees (bind heavy loads for others while they will not lift a finger)
• Against Ambition and Envy (who wishes to be first must be last and servant of all)
• Parable of the Unforgiving Servant.
• Right Use of Money (cannot serve two masters)
• Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus

These are just a few. There are many others. All of them address subjects that we, the faithful, can only use our prudential judgement when it comes to living by these teachings. If your complaint is that the Church should not teach on matters of prudential judgement, that flies in the face of all of these parts of the Gospels. And Paul’s letters are even more explicit about matters of prudential judgement. In some cases he even gives his personal opinion on how he would judge them (like whether it is good to get married or stay chaste). But Paul does qualify his opinion as being his alone and not binding on others. Yet his letters remain part of the Catholic cannon of inspired scripture. In the face of all these examples of Church teaching that can only be lived out by prudential judgment, it seems unjustified to complain about more of the same from the Florida bishops.

 

[Ender]

Do you think Veritatis Spendor implied that the deportation of alien criminals is an intrinsic evil? In any case, relocation within the country is not deportation.

I was careful to explain that this was a reference to the wholesale removal of a people from their homes. Here is Jimmy Aiken’s explanation of that passage:

Given the other things we are aware of—including the historical deportations Vatican II likely had in mind and the potential legitimacy of removing people from places, as in the Lateran Pact—it is most natural to understand the Holy See as condemning mass “ethnic cleansing” deportations of people who have long lived in a country, but not every individual case of deportation.

But this is really getting away from the main question…

I addressed this example because you presented it to show that some prudential judgments could be morally condemned, to which I would agree, but only if they involve an intrinsic evil…which this one does.

Since we are in agreement that decisions about immigration policy, etc., are a matter of prudential judgement, all that remains is to determine the role of the Church in matters of prudential judgement.

Agreed.

For this one can turn to the Gospels - an essential part of Church teaching - and just look for instances of Jesus himself teaching about matters of prudential judgement.

I don’t think these examples make your case. I have several times stated that the church gives us guidelines about how to live - which is what I see your examples to be - but she does not tell us how to apply those guidelines in specific instances. This is the point Cardinal Dulles made (2001):

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.

It is legitimate to dispute the application of the doctrines in particular cases even as the doctrines themselves are not up for dispute.

If your complaint is that the Church should not teach on matters of prudential judgement, that flies in the face of all of these parts of the Gospels.

It is my complaint that bishops should not present their political judgments as if there was only one moral opinion, and it was theirs. And one bishop (or a handful) is not “the church”.

 

[goout]

The prudential judgment issues can’t possibly be addressed in little soundbites like that.
Things like abortion and death penalty really don’t require a bunch of discernment. Anyone with a shred of conscience knows the answer.
The environment? That’s a complex topic that deserves more exposition.

 

[goout]

It is my complaint that bishops should not present their political judgments as if there was only one moral opinion, and it was theirs. And one bishop (or a handful) is not “the church”.

That’s exactly what I do want, for issues that it can be done for.
And it’s not moral opinion to say that abortion or death penalty are binary issues with only one moral conclusion. That’s simply presenting moral truth.

 

[Ender]

That’s exactly what I do want, for issues that it can be done for.

What we disagree over is which issues it is appropriate for them to express an opinion.

And it’s not moral opinion to say that abortion or death penalty are binary issues with only one moral conclusion. That’s simply presenting moral truth.

It is not opinion to say that abortion has only one moral position, and I have never raised an objection to the bishops expressing that truth.

Without meaning to send this thread off topic, this is not true of capital punishment.

“It is not one of those teachings a Catholic has to accept, like, for example, abortion. Abortion has clearly been defined by the church as a moral evil, which is never accepted under any circumstances or any justification.” …" If they’ve thought it through and prayed about it, they can still be a Catholic in good standing and not go along with the bishops on this (death penalty) issue.” (Bishop James Conley, 2016)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I addressed this example because you presented it to show that some prudential judgments could be morally condemned, to which I would agree, but only if they involve an intrinsic evil…which this one does.

I almost agree with that. If they involve an intrinsic evil, they can be found immoral by the Church as a direct instance of Church teaching. If they do not involve an intrinsic evil, but just an ordinary evil (such things exist), then the clergy should not render their prudential judgement as if it is Church teaching, but they can present the principles upon which any faithful Catholic’s prudential judgement could be based. Such would be the case in any homily about charity, for example. There is a difference between saying that “The Lord requires us to be charitable” and “The Lord requires that we donate 10% of our pre-tax income to the Church.”. The listing of the issues in question is an example of the former type of teaching and is right and proper for the Florida bishops.

I don’t think these examples make your case. I have several times stated that the church gives us guidelines about how to live - which is what I see your examples to be - but she does not tell us how to apply those guidelines in specific instances.

This is a perfect description of the list in question. It does not tell us how to apply Church teaching to the specific decisions of who to vote for. Now you did give an example earlier of a statement by a bishop that was too specific in calling for a specific political policy, and I will grant you that is questionable. But that was not part of the document in question.