Full Text of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
November 15, 2007
Can be found here.
22 Comments
Comments are closed.
Catholic perspectives on culture, society, and politics
Blog Associations
Site Counter
Ad Free
Can be found here.
Comments are closed.
#34-5 are particularly clear.
Honestly, this document is amazing.
In par. 35, I wonder what counts as “truly grave moral reasons”? Let’s imagine, just for discussion’s sake, that the election is a choice between Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton. Let’s assume a voter thinks that Romeny’s position on the Roe / abortion / judges / public funding cluster of issues was the morally right one, and Clinton’s the wrong one. But, this voter also believes that the Iraq war was wrong from the beginning, that it is immoral to detain suspected terrorists at Guantanamo, and that the Romney Administration would not attend closely enough to the scandal of coercive interrogation. What should this voter do if, after a cold review of the facts, he or she decides that, in the end, whatever Clinton might be saying during the campaign, she is unlikely to prosecute either the war in Iraq or the “Global War on Terror” in a way that is meaningfully different from the way Romeny would prosecute them. Still, she is *saying* better things. Then what?
So as to do our part and save the USCCB from having to do an appeal next week to pay for more bandwidth here is 34-35
34. Catholics often face difficult choices about how to vote. This is why it is so important to vote according to a well-formed conscience that perceives the proper relationship among moral goods. A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to
other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.
35. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
Over all, I am impressed with the new version of the document. There is one section that I have issues with, and I’ll try to do a short post on it tonight.
Rick: that’s where individual prudential judgment comes into play. There is no hard and fast answer. Cooperation with evil is only formal when you share the evil intent– I am SO glad the document makes this pellucid, as it should put the Catholic Answers voting guide out of business. I think issues like war, abortion, and torture are all “truly grave moral reasons” for making moral judgments.
While the document is overall very good, I think people’s reaction to it has been overly optimistic. John Allen went so far as to proclaim that the bishops have brought the pro-life and “peace and justice” Catholics together in reconciliation (thereby reinforcing the language and the problem with the “culture wars” mentality in the Church, which is to some extent a false dichotomy). I believe he even said this before the document was released to the public. I am not hopeful that this document will “put the Catholic Answers voting guide out of business” either. The CA types have been ignoring the bishops for a while now, and I see little evidence that they will start listening to the bishops anytime soon. If anything, CA will revise their voters guide to give the impression that they are in line with the bishops and will argue (convincingly, to some) that their voice continues to have relevance. Lastly, all this presumes that the average Catholic will actually read this new bishops’ document. Most won’t. Most will continue to engage in politics as they always have.
Aside from the issue I mentioned above, which I will post on, I found the document actually somewhat ambiguous on the issue of torture. It does mention torture in the section on “intrinsically evil acts,” and thus as an issue it has significant weight as an intrinsically evil act, like abortion. But later, when the bishops are discussing the relative importance of various issues, they seem to take torture OUT of that “inner circle” (so to speak) of life issues and make it of less importance, seemingly forgetting that they had previously insisted that it is an intrinsically evil act. Maybe I need to read it again, but it seemed ambiguous to me.
Michael:
I thought it was pretty clear on torture. I think it an amazing step forward that they list the core intrinsically evil acts: abortion, euthanasia, cloning, ESCR, torture, racism, genocide, direct attacks on noncombatants. Contrast this with the so-called “five non-negotiables” which stops after the first four, and tacks on gay marriage. Torture is also the first on list of things that attack human dignity (#45); Part II says is always wrong, and that it is also counterproductive. That’s pretty clear. Saying that it is instrinsically evil is a big deal.
Perhaps CA will not listen but this document actually, quite subtly, attacks the theological underpinnings of their whole argument. In other words, it’s not just a “Catholic wish list” but a sober attempt to explain the underlying moral theology. It’s far superior to what came before.
I also notice what looks like a nice subtle dig at Fr. Neuhaus when they discuss prudential judgment (#33): “this does not mean…. that our guidance and that of other Church leaders is just another political opinion or policy perference among many others… the Church’s guidance on these matters is an essential resource for Catholics as they determine whether their own moral judgments are consistent with the Gospel and with Catholic teaching.”
MM – Yes, of course there is much to love about this document. It’s a clear step-up from past attempts. Aside from their insistence that torture is never justified (an insistence that I think is remarkable), do you see any ambiguity in the document as far as how much weight torture and the other “intrinsically evil acts” have when compared with each other? On the one hand, they have quite a list of “intrinsically evil acts” which I would take as comprising a USCCB version of CA’s “non-negotiables,” but nevertheless, these intrinsically evil acts seem to have different weight when compared with one another, which is where I find the document ambiguous.
Michael I – I was just going to post the same type of response.
See my post here: http://vox-nova.com/2007/11/13/bishop-dimarzio-on-voting-guides/#comments
For further Church documents supporting the idea that not all intrinsic evil acts are created equally.
Tim, yes I think we’re pointing to the same problem in the text, but I disagree with your opinion on intrinsically evil acts. I think the bishops are ambiguous, but I think the fact that they place certain issues on the same level of “intrinsically evil acts” makes them of equal importance. The problem they have with Catholics being unable to distinguish issues is more with regard to confusing intrinsically evil acts with those that are not, the latter being those which are not direct attacks on human life.
Our different interpretations indicate that the text is indeed ambiguous on this point.
I rather like this comment by Archbishop Chaput: ” I think there are legitimate reasons you could vote in favor of someone who wouldn’t be where the church is on abortion, but it would have to be a reason that you could confidently explain to Jesus and the victims of abortion when you meet them at the Judgment. That’s the only criterion. It can’t be that we favor a particular party, or that we’re hostile to the war, or so on.”
http://ncrcafe.org/node/1431
Generally, I think that’s a good comment, but to place opposition to war and loyalty to a particular party on the same level is to do the same kind of careless comparisons that the bishops rightly critique in their new document. War is not an insignificant issue. The bishops, in their collective statements, do hold it up as of vital importance, whereas loyalty to a particular party is downplayed significantly.
I thought it was a great document. I have only 2 questions about it. 1) How do the bisops understand sex discrimination? I mean they are part of an all male priesthood. Is the priesthood the only area where sex discrimination is okay, or are there other areas? 2) on a related note, there seems to be a conflict between their call for family-friendly policies and their call for equaly pay for equal work. Shouldn’t workers supporting children and spouses get paid more? Didn’t the Church used to teach that?
But on the whole I liked it. It has given me permission not to vote in paragraph 36. I believe this is a first in political documents. This should make my life much easier next november since I won’t have to pick who to vote for from the list of candidates who have already disqualified themselves.
“The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many, It must always be opposed.”
I have trouble with this phrase – “innocent human life” for me. Here are some questions I struggle with:
- Innocent in what sense?
- How does one judge innocence?
- Who has the authority and competence to judge innocence?
- Why is innocent life more valuable than those who are not innocent?
MM — I have to say, I took that “dig” about disregarding bishops as a swipe at . . . well, others. And, I’m relieved that you have conceded there are no “hard and fast answers.”
For me — and, to be clear, I agree with you 100% on the immorality of torture, properly understood — it remains clear that the best course (not the perfect course, not the only course, but the best course) is to vote for the (flawed) candidate whose administration is dramatically more likely to be staffed with people whose understanding of religious freedom, the role of federal courts, the structure of the Constitution, and the full human dignity of unborn children is closer to the correct one. But, we’ll see.
Rick:
That is valid. But another might saw it ie best to vote for the flawed candidate who will overturn the legalization of torture, who does not see war as a first resort, who supports universal health care and who is concerned about the rising poverty and inequality that marks this second gilded age– secure in the knowledge that the “pro-life” candidate will do abolsutely nothing to reduce abortion. But again, we shall see.
Though, having just watched the utterly appalling response to the abortion question in the Democratic debate, I’m thinking that Michael I makes an excellent point…
Nate – I too have those same questions with regard to the phrase “innocent human life.” The U.S. bishops have, in their discussions on the death penalty in particular, been straightforward with their view that a person’s guilt does not remove his or her dignity as an image of God.
By the way, here is Fr. Neuhaus on the statement: “All in all, the statement on Iraq is a carefully considered moral reflection on a set of problems that do not lend themselves to easy resolution. In this statement, as in the ‘Faithful Citizenship’ document, the bishops have provided an example of how teachers of the Church can inform public discourse by neither exceeding their competence nor shirking their responsibility.” Doesn’t sound like he felt digged at.
MM — the “another” you mention, above, would also, I think, want to take into account, when forming his or her conscience and deliberating about “grave reasons”, the facts that “torture” is not legal; that no one — including the plausible Republican nominees and the current President — thinks war is a “first resort”; that the Democratic nominee’s record and views provide absolutely no basis for thinking that her approach to economic policy would differ markedly from the one currently in place; and that, by appointing judges, not supporting funding, not veto-ing abortion regulations, not funding embryo-destroying research, etc., the “pro-life” candidate would, “absolutely”, be doing *something.* (Indeed, he would be doing all that the law currently permits.) In my view, a conclusion that rests on the premise that Bush Administration has done “absolutely nothing” on abortion is, to the extent it does, of questionable soundness.
Well said Rick!
No. 45 in the document continues to foster the John Paul II verbal error on the death penalty (St. Louis, 1999, it’s… “cruel”) which is not the position of even the revised Catechism article which states that it can be necessary but rarely in its prudential judgement (to which no one is bound strictly) …and thus #45 fosters opposing the death penalty as “Church teaching” while the catechism does not (it was Pope John Paul teaching…. which the USCCB then incorporated into their written work last year on the death penalty while simultaneously quoting the catechism…which means they put out a document with an internal contradiction).
“Gaudium et Spes” ( a pastoral not dogmatic constitution) gave the original list of acts (death penalty not on it) which it called “shameful” and later John Paul II referred to that list but added the verbiage of “intrinsic evil” to that list in #80 of VS. Neither a pastoral document from Vatican II nor VS…”Splendor of the Truth”… pretend to be infallible.
So they are “Church teaching” but not the kind of Church Teaching like the IC for which one owes a faith that says that anything has been divinely revealed. So the list that is given as “intrinsically evil”… A. does not include the death penalty and …B. is not a list that pretends to having been revealed by God …dissent from which is not therefore heresy as would be present in dissenting from the Immaculate Conception. There is Church teaching and there is Church Teaching so to speak. Bishops are not prone to make that distinction as neither are Popes since all of them are rulers and have a vested interest it seems in the laity thinking that all teaching is on the level of the Immaculate Conception which they know is not the case and so do those laymen who read alot.
Since slavery was allowed to the Jews by God as was some degree of torture (seen clearly in the proverbial books), they cannot be intrinisically evil like beastiality is intrinsically evil which latter act God at no time permitted to anyone on earth. So John Paul seems to be the real author of applying “intrinsic evil” liberally.
Abortion, euthanasia and killing innocents are condemned infallibly in sections 62,65, and 57 and are therefore Church Teaching in caps so to speak….here is the abortion statement therein:
” Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops-who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine-I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium. 73″
There is no such infallible declaration against a number of the things on the intrinsically evil list…a list begun in a “pastoral” document of Vatican II and then described by Pope John Paul in the non infallible section #80 of Splendor of the Truth which contains no such strong and formal wording as one sees in the above abortion condemnation.
PS…the abortion condemnation if from Evangelium Vitae