Peter Steinfels has a good discussion of the USCCB’s draft election year statement that has yet to gain final approval. He notes the background, as the “official guide” in 2004 was upstaged in some circles by “unlicensed guides”, such as the “five non-negotiable principles” document put out by Catholic Answers. Steinfels does not mention that some of these guides not only attempted ignore the bishops and align the Catholic Church with the Party of War and Mammon, but are also underpinned by really bad moral theology (is that too suprising when the goal is to follow the lead of the evangelical right?).
A little while back, I wrote a post on the necessity of a consistent ethic of life. According to Steinfels, the document states that “a consistent ethic of life should be the moral framework for principled Catholic engagement in political life”. It also includes torture and deliberate attacks on non-combatants as intrinsically evil acts, something that Catholic Answers has absolutely refused to do with its non-negotiable principles (that would muddy the partisan waters, you see). Moreover, it affirms that issues like poverty and health care crucial: “the moral imperative to respond to the needs of our neighbors’ basic needs such as food, shelter, health care, education and meaningful work is universally binding on our consciences”. Let’s hope and pray that these strong messages come through in the final document.
Morning’s Minion,
If I recall aright, you strenuously objected to Ponnuru’s use of the phrase “Party of Death” on the grounds that it would be perceived as refering to the Democratic party (even though this wasn’t what Ponnuru meant). Yet you appear to have no scruple about refering to the Republican party as “the Party of War and Mammon.” Why?
I’m pleased that the new version of FC will discourage the use of non-official voter’s guides. That Catholic Answers piece was a scandal.
Michael J. – agreed. Now, if they could just do something about Raymond Arroyo on EWTN…
This is old and well-worn territory, but…..
There are definitional, ideological and sitational issues related to war, economics, health care and torture (opponents to this, of which I am one, do not agree on terms, but by all means please go ahead and define torture in much more detail) that simply do not exist with abortion. Abortion is set apart because it is such a black and white issue. We know what it is. We know what it does. It is homocide; it has two victims.
Without a clear contradiction to Church doctrine, to suggest someone does not share my view on x or y or z, and advocate this policy prescription……therefore they don’t have a consistent ethic of life, as they only care about abortion, is to serve your personal political views too much.
Abortion is not “set apart” simply because it is always unjustified. Abortion is always unjustified killing, but so is unjust war, for example. Unjust killing in unjust killing, period.
Of course unjust war is unjustifiable. But that wasn’t the point.
There are those who are disingenuous in advocating their policy positions (which usually quite justifiable in the Catholic tradition), by claiming that if group x or person x truly cared about social justice and a consistent ethic of life and the common good and so on, then they would support or oppose cause y. Yet there is legitimate room for disagreement, especially absent common and clear definitions. More specifically, I mean that war, torture, economics, and health care are NOT abortion, cloning, and euthanasia – and any document that focuses on the latter to the minimization of the former is perfectably reasonable.
I wouldn’t be completely shocked if things blow up resulting in a document not being released. Despite impressions given otherwise, there is not a lot of agreement on the discernment process. Sure, on individual issues there is very much and significant agreement, but as far as how to best go about influencing elections to bring these goals about, there is very little agreement. Even among the politically adroit bishops, there seems to be the underlying belief that anything good that comes from the political process is pretty much despite the process.
I hope they drop the assertion that every Catholic has the “duty” to vote.
Michael,
I agree. While one might have a moral obligation to vote in some circumstances, it can’t be viewed as an absolute. Deliberate non-voting (as, say, as protest against the system or the poor qualtiy of the candidates) can be as much a fufillment of one’s civic duties as voting.
I wouldn’t hold my breath, though.
Blackadder– I wrote what I wrote with exactly this thought in mind. It’s sarcasm directed at Ponnuru and his fellow travelers. Of couse, by “Party of War and Mammon”, I don’t mean the Republican party, and frankly, I’m surprised that anyone could think otherwise [sarcasm alert off!].
I think you could make a decent Catholic case for somewhat severely restricting the franchise in democratic countries, but I need to research and read more.
Jonthan, first off, get your categories of instrinsic evils correct. Torture and the deliberate bombing of non-combatants are as inrinsically evil as abortion, cloning, or euthanasia. And as your attempt to avoid dealing with torture by seeking a definition– give me a break, please.
I am not defending torture, unjust war, or anything intrinsically evil.
Those things are as evil as abortion, cloning, or euthansia. But you need to acknowledge that their is definitional room for those two, and that there is not such room for cloning, euthanasia, or abortion. You have this tendency to throw around war and torture (and sometimes supporting or not supporting issue x or y related to other topics) as if they were as black and white as the other evils. They are not. And it is false to suggest: “these people don’t support x, how they really have a consistent ethic of life? How can they claim to care for the common good?”
GIve us a detailed definition of torture. Loud rock music all night? Sleep deprivation? Where is the line? The government has huge internal battles over this question.
Torture is not abortion. Abortion is a significantly greater concern, as is cloning and euthanasia. And unjust war is wrong. But let’s stop pretending it is not (sometimes) a debatable question we should seriously debate in a particular circumstance, and let’s stop using torture and war as an instrument to suggest others don’t have a consistent ethic of life.
Jonathan,
What definition of torture would you propose?
And “not dealing” with torture – no, no, no….absoutely not!
It is degrading to the dignity of the human person, a person created in the image of God.
At the very same time, it is wrong to
1). suggest there is a clear, uniform notion of what “torture” is. There is not. Some practices are beyond the pale. I’ll condemn them with you. Rap music 24/7 ?? Quite different from abortion, no? Tell us what you mean. Don’t cheaply throw around terms.
2). take the view of this term you have in your head, whatever that may be, and use it as a rhetorical device to “out-Catholic” those you might consider, because they don’t talk about health care or poverty in a way you would like, aren’t as concerned with life issues as you are. Too much talk of abortion and cloning and euthansia! Well, those issues are more important – far more important – because there is room for legitimate disagreement about how to address poverty and health care.
And if you don’t like it, so what? Argue your position. But come off this notion those who disagree on those issues (health care, poverty) aren’t really concerned with life issues. They just disagree with you.
Can you recognize this difference?
Blackadder,
My definition would be active, sustained torment on the body or mind which harms the body or mind so as to move the will. As John Paul told us, this is always a grave evil.
I recognize this may be broad, so a democratic society should debate the morality of its parameters, and the Church should actively participate.
“I wouldn’t be completely shocked if things blow up resulting in a document not being released.”
M.Z.,
I’m not sure they’ll get a final document either. If it doesn’t happen, I wonder if more bishops will follow Bishop Olmsted’s lead and produce their own voter guides for use in their respective dioceses.
For those critical of Catholic Answers or Bishop Olmsted for issuing voter guides that describe certain matters as “non-negotiable”, I would remind you that the Holy Father has also used the words “not negotiable” on a number of occasions to describe those same issues in the context of public policymaking, most significantly in Sacramentum Caritatis.
Now, I also understand the point Tony A made before that describing an issue as “non-negotiable” doesn’t necessarily translate into the non-negotiability of voting for or against a certain candidate. Nevertheless, surely it is a valid exercise to say that the policy items in Bucket A are more important than the policy items in all the other buckets.
if they could just do something about Raymond Arroyo on EWTN…
Hahahaha
Party of War and Mammon
I like that! Party of Destruction is also a good one…
The problem, Jay, is that Catholic Answers does translate issue non-negotiability into voting non-negotiability. Not only is that flawed reasoning, but it can easily slide into proportionalism. Consider abortion and torture, both non-negotiables. If you vote for Candidate A, who supports torture, against Candidate B, who supports abortion, on the grounds thta torture is less serious (Jonathan’s reasoning above), then you are engaging into proportionality i.e. choosing one non-negotiable over another to find the “greater good” or “lesser evil”. That is always wrong, but if you take this approach to voting, you will sooner or later fall into a proportionality trap.
Haven’t our bishops, to some extent, encouraged such proportionality in our electoral decision making?
For example, we have heard from some bishops in the past that if there are “proportionate reasons” for voting for a pro-abortion candidate over an anti-abortion candidate, then one may do so.
Given the make-up of the current political parties, each of which have areas where they are lacking, I guess I don’t see how one is to choose at all, if one may not weigh certain issues as more pressing than others (even between competing non-negotiables).
And I recognize that choosing between competing items that are deemed “not negotiable” is something of an oxymoron. If they’re “not negotiable”, how do you choose between them?
I don’t have any answers on that one.
But I still believe that the items the Holy Father has described as “not negotiable” in public policymaking should be identified as such in any document on voting that the USCCB comes up with.
You can reason your way into anything, I suppose.
“the grounds thta torture is less serious (Jonathan’s reasoning above), then you are engaging into proportionality i.e.”
Don’t misrepresent. I never said torture was less serious.
Noli confidere in conferentiis–put not your trust in conferences. In any case, if the contributors to this blog disagree so sharply, it is doubtful that Catholics will achieve a unified political voice anytime soon.
Nevertheless, surely it is a valid exercise to say that the policy items in Bucket A are more important than the policy items in all the other buckets.
There are no “buckets.”
MM,
So you have the party of war and mammon vs. the party of death and moloch.
Where is the consistent ethic of life?
It’s nowhere
The fact of the matter is that we are asked in this country to choose between the party of war and mammon which would like to see thousands killed in its name every year and the party of death and moloch which would like to see millions killed in its name every year.
Given that the one thing the church seems to consistently say every year –that we ought to vote–then only one of these choices seems justifiable. And it can only be justifed under the priciple of double effect, where the action intended is not to vote to put the party of war and mammon into power but really only to prevent the party of death and moloch from taking power.
Jay–
Proportionate reasons are indeed valid criteria for moral decision making, if and only if the issue is not intrinscially evil to begin with, otherwise you are engaging in proportionalism. But the acting of voting is not an intrinsically evil act, and if do not share the evil intent of a particular action, then you may indeed vote for a person who supports such an action without engaging in formal cooperation — given “proportionate reasons”. It’s basically an application of doubl effect reasoning. Of course, we can have a debate over whether there are compelling proportionate reasons to ever vote for a pro-abortion candidate, but what we cannot do is rule it out absolutely.
And MM, I am still be interested in your direct response to the two points….if that’s “proportionalism,” then we are defining the term down to almost no meaning whatsoever.
Jonathan, your arguments are all over the place. First, let’s be clear what are “non-negotiable”– abortion, euthanasia, cloning, torture, attcks on non-combatants. There are other matters in the gospel of life that offer more room for debate (e.g how to solve the health care crisis), but this is still not an excuse for ignoring the issue. Case in point: if you oppose attempts to increase insurance like S-CHIP, then you’d better have a good alternative to provide health care (and tax credits don’t cut it) or else it is fair game to question one’s commitment to the consistent ethic of life. And, by the way, torture IS up there with abortion as a non-negotiable intrinsically evil act– we are not in the domain of health care here.
Second, you are getting into definitional issues. Torture is not something you can fit into a narrow category, it is a basic attack on human dignity, the treatment of the human being as a means to an end. Because we cannot draw a fine line, does that mean torture is of lesser importance? No. And by the way, there are also vigorous debates over what does and does not comprise euthanasia (most recently over patients in persistent vegetative states)– to deny the importance of euthanasia simply because of this narrow grey area would be very wrong– but that is what you seem to be arguing in the case of torture.
Of course it is an attack on human dignity. But it is not sufficient to include torture in a list of nen-negotiables unless we have some common notion of what the term means. Does sleep deprivation count? Does rough, cursing verbal interrogation? The government continues to muddle through theses issues, and we also need to address it. Without this exercise, it is too cheap and easy to rhetorically throw around the term as a “gotcha!” to people you disagree with, suggesting they don’t have a consistent ethic of life, while of course you do.
And regarding the expansion of S-CHIP, the creation of new entitlements, or your view of single-payer ect., I don’t need to have an alternative to have a consistent ethic of life. It’s a public policy matter, one I am still studying. (And you misrepresent again with assigning tax credits as my solution – I don’t have one and have stated so clearly). If you have your policy preferences – great. But it is moral preening not only to fold those preferences into the consistent ethic of life – when one may legitimately believe in alternatives, so long as there is the goal and the striving for life and human dignity – but to keep suggesting that those who would oppose whatever your preferences are do not. Wrong. Health care is simply not cloning, euthanasia, and abortion, no matter the ways you state it is.
“There are no ‘buckets’.”
By “buckets”, I mean different sets of issues: foreign policy, health care, poverty, taxes, education, marriage and family law, abortion, judicial appointments, the environment, crime and punishment, etc.
I’m all for having a consistent ethic of life, but unless you’re claiming that ALL of these issues can be lumped together and are of equal import, and that there is a one and only Catholic answer that addresses each and every public policy issue, then of course there are “buckets”.
In the real world, those of us who don’t eschew voting recognize the balancing and picking and choosing that, unfortunately, must be done when choosing between the different policy priorities (i.e. “buckets”) of the candidates. Perhaps there are instances when the choices are so bad, that one must abstain from voting. But I consider that the exception rather than the rule.
If you insist on the “bucket” analogy, please at least see that all the life issues are in the same “bucket.” Abortion does not have its own “bucket.”
“The government continues to muddle through theses issues, and we also need to address it”. That’s a euphamism, if ever I’ve heard one. This government has legalized torture, pure and simple. It has adopted “enhanced interrogration techniques” right out of the Gestopo rule book (and no, that’s not an exagerration). It does things the Khmer Rouge perfected. It produces meno that say everything short of death or serious organ failure is OK. This is not muddling through. This is evil, pure and simple.
MM – Yes, you are right. The U.S. government has had its mind made up about torture for decades now. It has largely kept it a secret from U.S. citizens, but anyone who has been paying attention knows the truth. The U.S. gov’t is not “muddling through” the issue of torture… rather it is “muddling through” how it is going to justify the torture that it does and has been doing for some time now.
[...] to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship Morning’s Minion generated some good discussion around the U.S. bishops’ upcoming update of their voter’s guide, Faithful Citizenship a [...]
[...] Minion generated some good discussion at Vox Nova around the U.S. bishops’ upcoming update of their voter’s guide, Faithful Citizenship a few [...]