Pro-Life Catholics, how do you respond to this?

[LeafByNiggle]

That is exactly the problem of modern-day proposals of “preferential” economic systems for the poor. How is it just to make wealthier people pay more taxes simply because they are wealthier? That is equivalent to stealing from one person to pay off another, and violates the natural law of justice. This, in addition to the fact that it is not the job of the government, but of private organisations, to fund charity work, renders the idea completely contrary to both natural justice and the Catholic principle of subsidiarity. The only possible end that proponents of such a warped system might have in mind is the destruction of all social classes, and with it, the destruction of all social order.
[/quote]

I would call this a straw man argument. It argues against the complete destruction of all social classes. But such a conclusion is a gross exaggeration of the principle of a preferential option for the poor.

Having a preferential option for the poor, or having the rich pay more in taxes, is not going to destroy the social order or social classes. The poor will still be poor and the rich will still be rich. It is just that the poor will not be so terribly poor and the rich not so terribly rich. So the principle of a preferential option for the poor is not opposed to any other Catholic teaching.

As for “picking the pockets” of our neighbors, this is a mischaracterization of taxation by a legitimate authority, which is specifically allowed by Church teaching. It is not stealing. It is not picking pockets. It is a proper exercise of authority. As for how those taxes are spent, that is a matter for the government in question. If that government is a truly representative government, the actions taken by that government will be in accord with the will of the people. Not every single one of them, perhaps. There is always someone who does not want a public park to be built or does not think we need to pave the road south of town. But those things might still get done, and that is OK. Same with aid to the poor.

 

[thistle]

Pro-choice is NOT pro-abortion.

Pro-choice is absolutely Pro-abortion.

 

[Ender]

And yes, you must try to form your conscience correctly, and yes, your conscience can be in error. But the fact remains that your own conscience is supreme–as the catechism says.

What does it mean to claim our own conscience is supreme? It cannot mean that something is right simply because our conscience believes it to be right - as you said, conscience can be in error. Does it mean we are justified in doing whatever we believe is right? Well, if “justified” means we will not be held accountable for those errors of conscience then, no, our conscience does not justify our actions because we may very well be culpable for those errors and punished accordingly.

Given that our actions done in good conscience may in fact be sinful, and we may be held accountable for those sins, it isn’t clear in what sense our conscience can be considered supreme.

 

[midori]

I can’t find the bit where it says “your own conscience is supreme”. The only mention of “supreme” I’m seeing in regards to the conscience and the Catechism is “the supreme God.”

Do you have a paragraph # you can cite? Because I did notice a reference to “assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience” in #1792.

But in the process of looking around, I noticed this bit—

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.”
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: “Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ.” Therefore “it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble.”

So, every Sunday at Mass, we express contrition for–

I confess to almighty God
and to you, my brothers and sisters,
that I have greatly sinned
in my thoughts and in my words,
in what I have done
and in what I have failed to do,

Sometimes our errors are things we actively commit. And other times, our errors are in not taking the time to reach out to others and explain why x is wrong, or try and dissuade them from stumbling.

We always have the poor with us. Sometimes they’re poor as a direct result of their own actions and bad choices, and other times, they’re poor because life isn’t fair, and although we are equal brothers and sisters in the presence of God, we’re not equal in our possessions/intellect/situation.

But there’s no excuse for killing the innocent, and eugenics is always an ugly thing. Like, “Over the course of three months, 216 babies were born in 132 Indian villages-- and none of them were girls” or “23 million females are missing due to sex-selective abortion” or “In New York City, thousands more black babies are aborted each year than are born alive.”

And so, we point this out, because it goes back to the Golden Rule… because we don’t kill the inconvenient, if not because we recognize their inherent dignity despite their weakness, and if not because we recognize Christ in our neighbor, then because we don’t want to set a bad precedent for when we become the inconvenient ones…

 

[Erikaspirit16]

What does it mean to claim our own conscience is supreme? It cannot mean that something is right simply because our conscience believes it to be right - as you said, conscience can be in error. Does it mean we are justified in doing whatever we believe is right? Well, if “justified” means we will not be held accountable for those errors of conscience then, no, our conscience does not justify our actions because we may very well be culpable for those errors and punished accordingly.

Given that our actions done in good conscience may in fact be sinful, and we may be held accountable for those sins, it isn’t clear in what sense our conscience can be considered supreme.

I will re-enter the thread briefly because you seem to be honestly asking a reasonable question.

Is something right [in absolute terms, before God] simply because your conscience says it is? No. I’ve pointed out (along with others) that there IS an absolute morality. God knows what it is. The rest of us don’t always know; we think we know. And as you can see from this thread, some seem CERTAIN that they know. The rest of us aren’t so sure. Or (as in the case of the supremacy of conscience) we are equally certain on the other side. But you can do something that is in conflict with absolute morality and not sin because you are following your conscience. For example if you turn over the nice family that has been living peacefully next door for 20 years but are undocumented to ICE so they can be deported to El Salvador, I think God would say you have done an evil act. But many in the US today believe that this is the right thing to do. Is it the right thing? No. Have they sinned by following their conscience? No.

Are we justified in doing whatever we believe is right? In terms of our own salvation, yes. If it is something society has decided to pass a law against, we could be guilty of a crime, be convicted, and be punished.

Will you be held accountable for errors of conscience? Who is holding you accountable? God or the law? As I think everyone here agrees, you need to form your conscience correctly. But it seems to me your effort in doing so should be proportionate to the issue at hand. One extreme leads to legalistic thinking, obsessive behavior, and a pre-occupation with sin (God did not create us to spend our days being pre-occupied with sin). At the other extreme, you would have people who give five minutes attention to grave matters like abortion. I think God expects a reasonable, proportionate effort based on your education, ability, knowledge, access to information, etc. As for the law, it’s not really concerned with your conscience: either you broke the law or you didn’t. On the other hand, the punishment for a crime might well depend on what the judge thinks about the state of your conscience.

“It isn’t clear in what sense our conscience can be considered supreme”: I think you have summed it up perfectly. Because on the one hand, the catechism clearly says conscience is supreme. On the other hand, it lays down conditions, limitations, etc. And as you can see from this thread, there are sincere people on both sides.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I can’t find the bit where it says “your own conscience is supreme”

Midori seems perturbed by my use of the word “supreme.” Catechism 1790:
“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”

–“must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.” Sounds like “supreme” is a good word to use. But if you don’t like it, you could substitute “the highest authority” or “the final arbiter” or any number of expressions. But what it comes down to is that you are going to be judged on how well you followed your conscience, not whether you followed rule #1,456. God is not legalistic. God is just and merciful.

Can conscience be mistaken? Of course! I’ve got a surprise: we are human; we can make mistakes. That is how God created us. I don’t think God is going to punish us because we are acting in a way that demonstrates our nature.

What really bothers me is people that say “I KNOW the mind of God!!!” That’s just scary. People like that need to contemplate Isaiah 55, 8-9 and especially Isaiah 58. This particularly relates to this discussion because Isaiah is saying “Yes, you are following the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law. That’s not what God wants.”

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Our priest, a Jesuit, gave a good sermon today that relates to all this. He started with a story:

There was a wedding, and the reception was planned to be outside. But there was a terrific storm that day, and the family came to the pastor of the church and asked if they could hold the reception inside the church. After a little thought, the priest agreed. But the reception got a bit rowdy and loud, and the pastor began regretting his decision. At that point the assistant pastor came by and saw that the pastor was upset. “But didn’t Christ attend the wedding feast at Cana?” the asst. pastor said. To which the pastor replied, “Yes, but the Holy Eucharist wasn’t present.”

I hope I don’t have to explain that. It pretty much sums up the debate of this thread.

 

[midori]

“A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself.”

Indeed. But the thing is, there’s a difference between “my conscience” and “what I feel like doing.”

When we’re judged, there aren’t any excuses, or any explanations, or self-delusion, or reasoning, anything like that. There’s just the Truth, and you get to deal with it. All the stuff that you know deep down inside, but you rationalized away anyways to let you do wrong. “Yeah, this is usually a bad thing, but I’ve got good reasons.”

Because we’re never allowed to do evil.

And killing the innocent is always evil.

Some people might think, “Well, this is a valid solution to my problem.”

But it isn’t. It just gives you a new set of problems.

Sometimes we have the capacity to recognize that even before we choose it, but we do it anyways. And other people, it takes years to realize why x is wrong. And other people don’t realize until they’re faced with it at their judgment.

Pretty much the entire Catholic worldview is based on “how does this affect my soul”? Because we know no matter how much inconvenience or suffering we have in this life, as a result of trying to live morally and with love, we know that it’s ultimately just a temporary thing.

We don’t just have to “love our neighbor as ourselves”, but we have to “love one another as I have loved you.” And how did Christ love his people? He loved them in a sacrificial way.

Abortion is the opposite of sacrificial love.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

But I always abandon a thread when I find I am simply repeating myself over and over. That’s pointless. It’s not that I have no arguments, it’s that you simply reject them. And I reject yours. So what is the point of a “discussion” that consists of “I think it’s black.” “No, I think it’s white.”

 

[LeafByNiggle]

This fallacious argument seems to have been frozen in February 1848 and tiresomely microwaved year after year since then.
[/quote]
That’s cute word play. But does it mean anything?

As for “picking the pockets” of our neighbors, this is a mischaracterization of taxation by a legitimate authority, which is specifically allowed by Church teaching.

Now let’s see who’s setting up a strawman! You’ll have to point out where I said taxes are illegitimate, because I’m not seeing it.

Oh, my mistake. I thought you were saying it was illegitimate to use taxes to pay for programs for the poor. It’s good to know that you don’t think that after all!

It is not stealing.

To make a the tax a higher percentage for certain people is stealing, because the taxes will no longer be proportionally determined.

Nowhere in Catholic doctrine does it say that taxes that are not strictly proportional to income are illegitimate. (And before you accuse me of another straw man, note that stealing is illegitimate.)

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But I always abandon a thread

You come back though.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

You come back though.

Only for you!

 

[Elf01]

Pro-choice is absolutely Pro-abortion.

Especially when you spend time advocating for it online.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Certainly you’re aware of a particularly monumental event that happened in February 1848, right?
[/quote]
I’m not going to try to guess what your point was. If you want to play games, just forget it.

Oh, my mistake. I thought you were saying it was illegitimate to use taxes to pay for programs for the poor. It’s good to know that you don’t think that after all!

Taxes are legitimate, but the government is not the appropriate body for handling charity, according to the Catholic principle of subsidiarity.

Then don’t call it charity. Call it justice. There are aspects of society that preferentially favor those who are already wealthy, making it easier for them to become even more wealthy. Aid to the poor can be seen as an attempt to offset that benefit with a benefit only for the poor.

Besides, subsidiarity says that local solutions are to be preferred when possible. But when local solutions are inadequate to the need (as they certainly are in many cases - consider for example, the aftereffects of Hurricane Katrina) centralized governmental solutions may be employed. In any case, the decision on whether to employ a centralized governmental solution rests with the people through their elected government. That is Catholic doctrine.

Nowhere in Catholic doctrine does it say that taxes that are not strictly proportional to income are illegitimate. (And before you accuse me of another straw man, note that stealing is illegitimate.)

This is a strawman, because I did not say taxes must be strictly proportional to income.

Yes you did! I’ll quote it here:
(name removed by moderator):

To make a the tax a higher percentage for certain people is stealing, because the taxes will no longer be proportionally determined.

But whatever the consideration is, the rich will always end up paying more in raw amount than the poor, so it is unjust for the government to simply take more.

The rich will pay more, and it is not unjust to levy more taxes on the rich. At some point, it does become TOO MUCH, and then becomes unjust. But where that point is exactly is a prudential judgement on which people of good faith may disagree.

After all, the “redistribution” of wealth and property following a socialist revolution has consistently played out as the government unjustly taking things from the rich, depriving them of ownership.

Cherry-picking instances of unjust revolutions does not prove the general point that all programs that benefit the poor preferentially are doomed to follow in their example. Do you want me to cite instances where programs to benefit the poor have not led to social collapse? I can pick cherries too.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Of course society needs to be reformed if this is happening, but paying direct benefits to the poor will go nowhere. We must help the poor help themselves, not just pay them money collected from taxes from the wealthy. Even in a flawed system, if those wealthy people obtained their assets through moral and legal means, then the government has no right to deprive them of ownership simply to pay off the poor in compensation for something they personally were not involved with. That is to confuse the few greedy elite with the ordinary citizen who happens to be well-off, either through inheritance or through his own work.
[/quote]
Tax policy is often imprecise. That is unavoidable. But if we try to fine-tune tax policy too much we run into the problem of making the tax process itself too complex, so that the process of determining the proper amount of tax is actually more burdensome than the actually payment of those taxes. Many people say we have already passed that point. So tax policy is bound to be a compromise between justice and workability.

The “injustice” you allude to is an example. If the system benefits the wealthy by giving them better educational opportunities for their children, then any additional tax on the wealthy has the potential of taxing a childless wealthy person who does not necessarily benefit from this systemic inequality. But that is just one possible way in which the system could be rigged. It seems to me that taxing the wealthy a little more is a reasonable compromise to the problem mentioned above.

Also, just because assets were obtained legally and by moral means does not mean those assets were unaffected by some systemic inequality.

This has been the error of every socialist revolution…

We are not talking about a socialist revolution.

The rich will pay more, and it is not unjust to levy more taxes on the rich.

Actually it is, because not every well-to-do person is personally obliged to perform reparation for the greed of a select few.

Taxing the rich at a higher rate does not presume they were individually involved in any greedy endeavor.

There are also other problems which arise if charity becomes the work of the government under the guise of “social justice”. Charity must be given freely…

As I said, don’t call it charity, because it is not. It is justice.

As our former Pope Benedict XVI taught:

“The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern” .

And of course we are not proposing that the State provide everything.

 

[midori]

As I said, don’t call it charity, because it is not. It is justice.

Okay, so DH and I sacrificed. We paid our own way through school. We gave up our social life for years. We studied and we planned and we paved our way for our careers. We worked hard at our jobs, saved our money, paid our debt. When opportunity happened, we were in a position to take advantage of it. It wasn’t that we were all that and a bag of chips— but when God opened a door, we had our ducks in a row that allowed us to walk through it. And compared to most people in our poor, rural town, we’re successful, although in the big scheme of things, I’d classify us as “doing okay for ourselves”. But it wasn’t handed to us; we worked and sacrificed for it.

I just evicted a guy. He didn’t think he needed to pay his electric bill. He didn’t think he needed to pay his water bill. He thought he’d be clever, and move in an unauthorized roommate… but the power shut off, and so the guy never really got settled in. My Tenant spent all his time in a city an hour away, having sex with his ex-girlfriend, who’s six months pregnant with their child. He was clueless as to why I was terminating his lease. I was getting my money— what difference did it make to me whether he was actually living there? And I’m like, the fridge is full of maggots. the trash is full of ants, and the utilities are all shut off. He swore up and down that he would get the utilities turned on, and get stuff cleaned up. He’d “send someone over to take care of it”, because, y’know, he’s can’t be bothered to clean his own mess. Yet when his unauthorized roommate comes to me to ask for access to get his stuff out (which is how I find out about that part), and I tell him he needs to take it up with the tenant, because of Liability— I’m not going to let someone cart stuff out of someone else’s house just on their say-so— the Tenant tells me, “I don’t even have a key.” So he’s making all these promises to pacify me, but has no intent of actually doing anything about it.

My town is full of people like that. I usually avoid them better than this, but I gave this guy a chance because he seemed to have some solid support.

Some of them don’t have people to teach them how to live, how to make decisions, how to function in society, how to plan ahead, how to live by more than the skin of their teeth.

This guy, he had someone to teach him all that… but he was an entitled, self-absorbed infant, and ignored the lessons.

His rent was being subsidized by his work. All he had to come up with was $65/month… and yet he couldn’t keep up with his phone bill, or his electric, or his water…

His sister was selling him a car. But he couldn’t be bothered to pay her for it. Then he wrecked it— smashed the windshield and “left it on doughnuts.” She took it back. He’d never given her a penny for it, and certainly didn’t lift a finger to reimburse her for the damage, last I heard.

Human beings are a very incentive-driven creature. If he was paying his full expenses out of his own resources, do you think he would have taken things more seriously?

 

[midori]

Eventually, I hope he’ll learn from his stupid mistakes of the past, and grow into the person God created him to be. But right now— now’s not the time. He has no virtue at all. All he has is “what I want”. He’s not embarrassed by the squalor he left behind; he’s not concerned about leaving behind $x worth of furniture that belongs to someone else and was given to him to help get started. He doesn’t care about adhering to a contract, keeping his word, or anything like that. He doesn’t care that he’s squandered the material assistance and opportunities that so many people have given to him— I’m aware of at least four or five people who have each directly sacrificed something for his benefit, and every single one of their contributions was squandered. And until he learns to discipline himself— he’ll be stuck in the world he created for himself.

How could government assistance succeed where the people closest to him have failed to make an impact?

What kind of justice is it to take $x from people who have sacrificed for years to earn it, and give it to someone who can’t be bothered to run their own life, or repay the love of those around them with the minimum of effort?

Talking about “the wealthy have better opportunities” or “the poor suffer from systemic inequality” is nice and all, but it sounds like a generic talking point from a talking head, rather than someone who’s been in the trenches, helping fight against poverty where it exists amidst real individuals, not generic romanticized notions of “the poor”. And anyone who’s been in the trenches knows— it’s okay to appreciate people as children of God, while at the same time, you recognize that much suffering is tied to the natural consequences of some people’s life choices.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

…
In other words, I almost always find the fact that a candidate is pro-life to be an indicator that he or she is almost always on the right side of most other issues.

The “right side” as you see it. Let’s take them one by one:

• religious liberty

But not the liberty for a Church to offer sanctuary to a fleeing illegal immigrant.

• freedom from unnecessary government control (like freedom from socialism, communism, and fascism)

…except government control of immigration policies.

• an economic system that best fights poverty,…

“Best” in your view is not “best” in everyone’s view.

• freedom to choose private health insurance

…which means nothing if you do not have the means to pay for said health insurance.

• protection from invasion along the border from drug cartels, child sex-trafficking, MS-13, and other law-breakers.

Every candidate claims to be against these things. The fact the certain candidates shout it loudly and more often is no indication that their policies will actually be better at accomplishing these things.

 

[Ender]

Will you be held accountable for errors of conscience?

We are agreed that there is an objective moral law. The next step is to agree on what it is. For a Catholic that’s a bit more straightforward than perhaps for others: we can look it up. Then we have to distinguish between sins and errors. If I know the (moral) law but fail in honestly trying to apply it I have erred, but I have not sinned, and I should (normally) not be held accountable.

If, however, I know what the church teaches but reject it because I believe she is wrong, and act on that belief, it seems I almost surely will be held accountable.

Are we justified in doing whatever we believe is right? In terms of our own salvation, yes.

If this was true then we could not be held morally culpable for any case where following our conscience led us into sin, but we know that there are cases where, despite following our conscience, we will in fact be accountable, therefore this cannot be true.

Will you be held accountable for errors of conscience? Who is holding you accountable? God or the law?

Issues of secular law don’t really concern us here.

Because on the one hand, the catechism clearly says conscience is supreme.

I disagree. I would think this cannot be so inasmuch as merely following ones conscience does not free one from culpability for all sins.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

I was going to stay out of this from now on, but this was just too much.

we can look it up

Everyone agrees what it is? No difference of opinion? Everyone interprets Church teaching in exactly the same way? You’ve got to be kidding me.

If, however, I know what the church teaches but reject it because I believe she is wrong, and act on that belief, it seems I almost surely will be held accountable.

But you are assuming you KNOW what the church teaches, that there is absolutely 100% no differences in interpretation. That’s simply wrong.

If this was true then we could not be held morally culpable for any case where following our conscience led us into sin, but we know that there are cases where, despite following our conscience, we will in fact be accountable, therefore this cannot be true.

Sorry, that’s absolutely wrong as well. You cannot be guilty before God if you follow your conscience, which you have formed to the best of your ability.

I disagree. I would think this cannot be so inasmuch as merely following ones conscience does not free one from culpability for all sins.

Of course it does. Read the catechism.

You are making a HUGE erroneous assumption: That whatever the Church says in terms of morality is NOT subject to interpretation. Of course it is. Just pick a subject. Differing opinions all over the place. And there always have been–go back to Peter and Paul and the issue of Gentiles needing to get circumcised. Read Corinthians I. Read basically anything.

And of course you are also NEGATING the role of conscience. If, as you say, we simply have to follow Church teachings, why would we need a conscience at all? We would just be robots, following orders. No free will, no conscience. Does that make any sense? I don’t think so.