I am inclined to support Fred Thompson for president, but his answer to the “Schiavo question” is simply unacceptable.
Mr. Thompson, if you want to be the prolife alternative, then be the prolife alternative. Otherwise, I am voting for Huckabee or Brownback.
This entry was posted on Monday, September 17th, 2007 at 12:38 pm and is filed under Alexham, Euthanasia, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Second Vatican Council, Apostolicam actuositatem 14
Comment Policy
Notice: All comments are moderated
Theme Contempt by Vault9.
Blog at WordPress.com.
Are you a one issue voter?
If by “one-issue voter” you mean that I will not vote for someone who fails to recognize the inherent dignity of every human life from conception until natural death, then yes. I am a one-issue voter.
Isn’t the intrinsic dignity of the human person inherent to all human issues, not just abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, and the other “social issues.” How does Iraq, for instance, or free trade, or capitalism itself factor into this equation? Isn’t the intrinsic dignity of the human person violated in there as well? Isn’t divorce a violation of the dignity of the person? JPII argues so in Love and Responsibility. How about capital punishment? How about the assault on the middle class as a result of tax and trade policies?
How does Fred stand on these and a wide range of other issues, all of which impact the intrinsic dignity of the human person? Or does only one issue, or set of issues, matter? Huckabee supports the Iraq war in a big way, despite the needless slaughter and uprooting of innocent people — once again a disrespect of the intrinsic dignity of the person, I would say, particularly when other means are available to address terrorism and insurgency.
I agree with your defense of the dignity of the human person. It is an inviolable principle. But it is present in every social, economic, political, cultural, or even religious issue. Shouldn’t we demand more of our politicians than a simple litmus of where they stand on “social issues.”
Frankly, I find all the candidates pretty disgusting in general. Everywhere I look I see “the end justifying the means.” Everywhere. Doesn’t this intellectual and moral relativism necessarily lead to a violation of the intrinsic dignity of the human person?
Shouldn’t we demand more of our politicians than a simple litmus of where they stand on “social issues.”
Yes! We shouldn’t reward the mediocrity of presidential candidates.
“We shouldn’t reward the mediocrity of presidential candidates.”
I totally agree. We shouldn’t. But we do. For example, how did we allow a religious fundamentalism to take hold of the reigns of power in America? Somebody supported somebody. And here we are.
We talk about the culture wars, but miss the point. Protestantism and liberal democracy are the culture. Instead of addressing the culture itself, most Catholics got excited about specific issues within the prevailing culture, and then labeled this focus to be the culture war. The prevailing culture, remained intact. It even grew in power and influence.
A Catholic ethic is radically different from a Protestant ethic. Everything about a nation flows from the prevailing ethos — from language to policy. A viable culture war must question the fundamentals of the prevailing ethos. What is the Catholic alternative? For example, how would a Catholic ethic reshape our policies towards the homeless, or the substance abuser, or violent youth? How would it shape our foreign policy? How would it reshape language? What questions would be asked. Is a welfare recipient “worthy” or “unworthy” to receive assistance? And on and on and on.
The real culture war has to do with Protestantism and liberal democracy, and their intellectual underpinnings (e.g., the autonomous individual vs. a Trinitarian view of the individual that is intrinsically relational). Out of the individualistic spirit of Protestantism, e.g., flows everything, from a definition of criminal justice, law, public health, welfare, immigration, economic policy, and foreign policy to a set of policies and practices that assault the dignity of the human person on a continuing and ongoing basis.
It appears to me that we have depreciated the full meaning of the phrase “the culture of life.” The culture of life is about everything that supports the dignity of the human person. A culture of death is about everything that support a depreciates the dignity of the human person. Doesn’t the notion of the autonomous individual which lies at the heart of Protestantism and liberal democracy depreciate everything about the intrinsic dignity of the human person?
I believe we have to begin look at the predicament in America from the foundations up. As long as the foundations remain intact, it matters little what we do at the level of issues.
Gerald, I agree completely with all you said. How, in your opinion, can we practically change the foundations? (e.g. Do we start with catechesis at the parishes?)
I just find that many people, including Catholics, get defensive when the real foundations of America are shown to align with those of Protestantism, which is nothing but a historical fact… anyway… any ideas?
On the Schiavo issue, you do realize that the case of whether the provision of nutrution and hydration to patients with PVS was orrdinary (morally licit) or extraordinary was a huge murky area until very recently. In fact, until 2004, the balance of Catholic thought came down on the “extraordinary” side, as attested to by the large case history since the 1950s and the writings of Catholic ethicists like Gerald Kelly. Indeed, even bishops disagreed (the Pennsylvania bishops said ordinary, the Texas bishops said extraordinary). See my earliest posts for the casuistry: http://vox-nova.com/2007/07/24/when-is-euthanasia-not-euthanasia/
I believe there has been a very subtle development of doctrine in this area, attested to by a papal allocution in 2004, and confirmed by a recent CDF statement (the statement was in response to a USCCB question, which in itself shows how unsettled the question was). And there are still some grey areas.
With all this in mind, I cannot imagine how you are holding this candidate to the same standard you would hold him on an issue like abortion. If you support an all-encompassing approach to the gospel of life, then fine, I’m with you, but I don’t see you questioning him on war, death penalty, poverty etc.
On Thompson himself, I believe his campaign was most aptly defined by the Economist as “a succession of conservative clichés interspersed with long pauses”. What does he stand for? Does he know anything about policy or the issues? Evidence suggests not (and his Schiavo example is yet another example, I believe). This is an extremely wealthy lobbyist who casts himself as a “man of the people” when it suits him. And yet, his attraction seems to be his “manly” or “macho” aroma (and the fact that he played a tough guy on TV!). Hasn’t the Republican party not learned to run a mile from this kind of candidate at this stage?
“I just find that many people, including Catholics, get defensive when the real foundations of America are shown to align with those of Protestantism, which is nothing but a historical fact… anyway… any ideas?”
Any ideas? … Well, many … but let’s take something simple and a few questions.
I believe we must begin to look at Religion as Culture. There are four major socioreligious groups in America: the Catholic, the Black Protestant, the Jews, and the White Protestants. White Anglo-Saxon Protestantism is the Culture of America. What are their underpinnings, their assumptions? How do they contradict each other?
In the Protestant culture, the notion of the individual is that of the autonomous individual. Does the autonomous individual — and the notion of society as composed of atoms of individuals — square with the Catholic ethos? The Black religious ethic? No. In the Catholic ethic, the individual is intrinsically relational, i.e., it is predicated on a Trinitarian notion.
Yet, out of this one principle, the autonomous individual, flows everything that shapes America, from our language to prison policy, from the form of our economy to whether we can drink in a park.
Now ask yourself two simple questions: 1) why is the notion of “help” in America defined as “self-help?” and 2) why do Americans who want to help the poor have an underlying “suspicion of the poor,” i.e., are the poor truly worthy of being helped?
Where do these cultural instincts come from? Take the he notion of accountability in social policy. Does it come out of this “distrust?” How does the notion of the autonomous individual factor in here? Then ask: where do these notions from from? What are their origins? How do they impact social policy, How do they impact Black youth, the nature of education, training, expectations, lifestyle, etc.? How do they shape America? What challenge does Catholicism pose to American culture? How would it radically transform it?
Fifty years ago, it was all too easy. We could look at the dogs in Selma and say: “What’s with that?” Today, we all look at a MacMansion and say: “I want one!” What’s going on? What are the wellsprings of American society? Who are we anyway? Just like then we asked: What’s with the dogs? So today we should ask: What’s with the greed?
Looking back, perhaps it is instructive to inquire in this way: What was Malcolm X angry AT? What were the Black Panthers angry AT? What was the philosophic object of their anger? Without even knowing so: were they angry at the Protestant ethic itself and all that it has unleashed in American society?
Maybe it’s time to ask the larger questions: 1) what kind of a people do we want to be? 2) what kind of a nation do we want America to be? and 3) what kind of America do we want to project to the world? Are we satisfied with who we are? This is a question of being.
What is needed in our theological and philosophical discussions on this and other blog sites is a shared PURPOSE?
Just some highly provocative thoughts.
Just Vote Huckabee :)
Glen I think you raise some interesting points. However I do think the US and what it is has always been a on going project. True the founding fathers did have a impact(By the way it is Const Day- get the flag out). However I do think we can make toomuch of it.
THe Difference between the the US of the 1790′s and the America during the Civil War is just breathtaking. Lincoln set the tone for a much more active Federal Govt giving help. THe Land Grant College system was just one. Further lets face it the NEW DEAL era changed everything forever. IS Social Security or it concepts in real danger? Medicare and Medicaid? Etc Etc. In fact In my home state and places like Georgia if you have a pretty easy grade point average you can attend one of many State Universities for free.
The Fact is that Catholic though was interacting with all that and we were a part of it. I am not exactly sure how Protestant the founding principles really were in the first place. However we have come a long way since then.
Oops that last comment was me not glen
“How, in your opinion, can we practically change the foundations? (e.g. Do we start with catechesis at the parishes?”
Katerina, catechesis is always important. But more important is the quality catechesis. And in that regard, a catechesis must have a larger purpose than individual salvation. Catholics, as a function of their belief, need to share a common good that helps shape their road to salvation. Salvation is personal and communal.
The strength of Thomistic ethics lies in its intellectual underpinnings. For St. Thomas, practical reason is about the truth of the matter. Once truth has been digested and determined — principle, intention, and circumstance — the will then chooses what has been judged to be good. Look at any good ethics book — Vernon J. Bourke, e.g., — you’ll find it deals mostly with matters of the intellect.
But in the public forum we all tend to approach matters as though they were about good and evil. This is the American way. It is the Protestant way. But it is not the Catholic way. In that context, morality reduces to power, not practical reason.
We need to recognize that moral corruption is at bottom a corruption of truth. In other words, we need to get habituated to seeing corruption primarily as an intellectual corruption. To be sure, moral corruption exists. But it is morally corrupt primarily because at bottom there is an intellectual corruption of some truth.
Having developed the habit of perceiving intellectual corruption, there lies before us the possibility of developing a new commanding language. Once the language becomes available, a revolutionary change has already begun. Truth, language, and leadership — along with an existential resonance with the inner voice of the human spirit — are the key ingredients for bringing about revolutionary change. Truth is key, in its inward and outward expression. When one speaks the truth, one also awakens the spirit of man. Revolution is then becomes Drama, not just Noise.
Ron Paul, in my opinion, trumps both B & H. He’s the only republican in the race who opposes the Iraq War on principled grounds – I’d think that fact alone would especially appeal to the VN readership. RP is also 100% pro-life and has a better immigration response than any other republican (or democrat) candidate.
http://catholicsforronpaul.blogspot.com/