“CNN is highlighting a story of a Catholic nun in South Bend who were turned away from their polling place today for insufficient ids. My takeaway question: What were any Catholic sisters doing voting for either Clinton or Obama?”
Now, this is highly ironic, especially since Ms. Lopez is on record as defending an intrinsically evil act (waterboarding). Indeed, if we interpret the infamous 2004 “Ratzinger letter” as many partisans would like to interpret it, then Ms. Lopez should be barred from communion for manifest public support for torture. And yet here she is, telling nuns who to vote for. Incredible.
May 7, 2008 at 11:35 am
Do you just hang out at NRO waiting for stupid remarks to be said? I’m sure you could do the same at DailyKos or DemocraticUnderground or LittleGreenFootballs or whatever, but what is the point? Just for your daily “gotcha”?
May 7, 2008 at 11:44 am
Maybe they were following Rush’s advice and were turning out for Clinton. You know, thinking of indirectly helping McCain. Would Lopez publicly and ignorantly object to that?
I see she’s entertained the prospect that they were voting Republican. Sometimes it’s good to think through things before implicitly suggesting that a nun is doing something un-Catholic.
JohnH,
If there are “stupid remarks” by Catholics about other Catholics at the sites you list, then you be sure that someone here will note it.
May 7, 2008 at 11:57 am
“Maybe they were following Rush’s advice and were turning out for Clinton. You know, thinking of indirectly helping McCain. Would Lopez publicly and ignorantly object to that?”
But we are not allowed to apply our personal judgment or strategy to our vote. It is a non-negotiable evil to vote Democratic. Well, maybe if one had a papal dispensation.
May 7, 2008 at 11:58 am
“Indeed, if we interpret the infamous 2004 “Ratzinger letter” as many partisans would like to interpret it, then Ms. Lopez should be barred from communion for manifest public support for torture. ”
I couldn’t care less what Ms Lopez beleives nor am I defending her, but as evil as torture and waterboarding is, support of it IS NOT on the same level as the active support of abortion. Let me repeat, abortion is evil but it is not murder. You should know this.
May 7, 2008 at 12:01 pm
I think you mean, ,torture is evil, but it is not murder, right?
May 7, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Torture is different than abortion, but it is sufficiently objective, grave, and clear to not allow support of it and to justify denial of communion.
May 7, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I couldn’t care less what Ms Lopez beleives nor am I defending her, but as evil as torture and waterboarding is, support of it IS NOT on the same level as the active support of abortion. Let me repeat, [torture] is evil but it is not murder. You should know this.
But still intrinsically evil. i.e., there is no excuse for it.
May 7, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Ahh Mrs Lopez lol.
May 7, 2008 at 12:10 pm
And as (I believe) has previously been pointed out here, the direct actor in the case of torture (and in the case of capitol punishment) is government. That is to say, if the next President condones torture or orders it, then torture by necessity will occur. If a pro-abortion rights politician is elected President, then they may appoint a Supreme Court justice who may prevent the court from overturning Roe which may cause more abortions.
While we’ve breached this subject, besides the appointment of Supreme Court justices who are personally opposed to abortion but haven’t as yet overturned Roe (indeed, strengthened it in Planned Parenthood v Casey) and besides talking about it every four years, what has the Republican Party really done to stop abortion lately?
May 7, 2008 at 12:13 pm
“It is a non-negotiable evil to vote Democratic.”
Nope. There are more than a handful of pro-life dems out there fighting the good fight, and I see no problem whatsoever in voting for such individuals.
That having been said, I have yet to see a persuasive case made that there are “proportionate reasons” that would justify a Catholic voting for a man who would deny children who survive abortions basic medical care.
May 7, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Walter,
Point granted. But MM is not arguing for moral equivalency here in his hypothetical interpretation. If I were to commit adultery or fornication, for example, without repenting, then I would be deemed unworthy to receive the Eucharist. If I torture someone against their will, I have commited an evil act that deems me unworthy to receive Communion. If I have an abortion or formally cooperate in the evil of abortion, I am unworthy to receive Communion. These are not morally equivalent acts, but they are all evils that make me unworthy to receive.
May 7, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Chase quite a bit we have done!!!
I think this past term we did our best to get two memebers on the court that set the framework to get Roe overturned and get it back to the states. We have also to the best of our ability got people that would be friendly to such argument in the lower courts
In Louisiana Republican worked with PRo-life Democrats to get one of the most restrictive abortion laws on the COuntry on the books and will take effect as hopefully abortion is more restricted.
In SOuth Dakota Republican Legislaturors worked to get a bill prohibiting abortion in front of the voters. Sadly we pro life people in the pews , that are so use to blaming politicians, could not convince the good people of South Dakota to pass it
Many Republicans just this past year drew a line in the sand and stopped Rudy from becoming the nominee
The Bush Adminsitration has been an advocate for LIFE and often an ally of the Vatican on such issues in the international arena. As can be seen in the work of the now US envoy to the Holy See Mary ann Glendon
In Georgia Republicans have been working hard on life issues as to the HUman Right amendment
We ahve been working hard to answer your question
May 7, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I posted the following at the end of the Hiroshima thread; I’m taking the liberty of double-posting here since it is not off-topic and I would like to further engage and MM and Michael Iafrate on this point. Sorry if its seems that I am harping on this.
——-
The problem still seems to me that the very notion of intrinsic evil excludes the notion of moral calculus. If it is intrinsically evil, nothing can justify it. I assume you agree — that is the basis of the appeal to this concept in excluding certain acts from the realm of justification (torture, abortion, atomic bombing).
But the abstraction of the act from moral calculus (and that is what its “intrinsic” character does) works against you also — because what it does is lumps all intrinsically evil acts together, and says, “No comparison, no discussion, is relevant here; these are all the same or at least incomparable.” The result is lumping together torture, abortion, pornography, fornication, etc., etc.
It seems to me a simple fact that in real life many intrinsic evils (especially sexual ones) cannot be removed from moral calculus. Surely you would agree that torturing someone to death is “worse” than purchasing pornography?
Again — I am NOT denying that BOTH acts are indeed intrinsically evil.
The problem is that when you use this notion evaluatively — as if saying an act is intrinsically evil is all one needs to say to judge it — you then end up lumping together acts that are, obviously, quite different quality and gravity.
Again, when you use intrinsic evil evaluatively, without qualification (i.e., without moral calculus), you start to imply that torture is “as bad” is abortion is “as bad” as fornication…
Intrinsic evil language is formal, categorical, and actually provides NO evaluation. Other factors must be used to evaluate these acts, so that we can say, as we all do, that however evil fornication is (and surely it is evil) it is not as evil as building a concentration camp.
There needs to be a way to say that the Iraq war is much MORE evil than any number of intrinsic evils.
I suppose you could say that the Iraq war is intrinsically evil, also, in that its REAL “object” was to puff up Bush’s pathetic, mutilated ego at the expense of human lives. But by this logic, any evil act can be judged as, in its real essence, intrinsically evil — and the category disappears…
May 7, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Positive examples in state legislatures notwithstanding (and indeed, those are positive examples), I find very little that this administration has done towards even advancing the cause of making abortion illegal. While the administration has come down with the Vatican on this issue (at least publically, not in action), it has noticeable breaks on the war, on torture, and on capitol punishment. In these instances, not only has the administration disagreed with the Vatican, but it has been one of or the principle actors violating those principles (Bush continues to wage the war, Bush’s Justice Department routinely tries to craft a legal justification for torture, Bush put a record number of people to death in Texas).
I think Benedict’s speech at the UN should act as a reminder that human rights, represented in the full list of those things we call intrinsically evil, are inextricably linked.
What I am wary of, jh, is the assertion that Catholics ought be compelled to vote Republican on the basis of an issue where, at least nationally, they have not necessarily shown great progress or great action. Both Cardinal Ratzinger and the USCCB voter guides have been clear that the intrinsic evil comes not in voting for a pro-choice candidate but voting for a candidate because they are pro-choice. I would contend that a similar standard does or ought exist for those who vote for a candidate who supports torture, racism or capitol punishment. Absent that condition, we have a responsibility to place great consideration to the teaching of the bishops on all issues (yes, all issues) and to carefully consider various and all means towards mitigating sin.
May 7, 2008 at 12:44 pm
John H–
If daily Kos was in the business of telling Catholics who they can and cannot vote for, then, yes, I would call them on it too.
May 7, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Re the post: The tu quoque is always a good argument, isn’t it?
May 7, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Chase
I guess the question I ask as to the abortion issue is what more do you want the Republicans to do. I am all open to ideas how to advance the anti abortion agenda in the public square. It odes appear thta Bush and many other Republicans are doing what is all humanly possible on this front.
I know I hit on this quite a bit but unless we people out here in Flyover Country take advantage of the opportunity that is given to us then don’t expect drastic change. Let us say that McCain put up a judge that said he would overturn Roe v Wade. I amean he was quite explict on it. Would Catholics and others pro-lifers go to the mat and do the hard political work to overcome a Filibuster. I have my doubts.
My eyes were really opened during thr immigration debate how people that take a stand on something controversial are not rewarded nor get much real political help to make it happen.
So we have to go incremential. Again as to abortion if you ideas of what Bush should be doing I am all ears. However it is got to be framed in the practical real world
As to Captial Punishiment, with rare exception of Federal Prisioners being executed, how exactly is this a Federal issue in reality. I know it is brought up all the time by people on all sides. In the end unlike abortion it can be eliminated on the State level.
I would note that Senator Brownback that ran for the nomination had a much more restrictive view of when the Death Penalty and when it should be used. He was met by Catholics of all political stripes with a big yawn
ON the State level there has been progress in this debate. However where are the activist!!! Will Catholics reward Republicans that dare go outside the box. I am not so sure. THe great political risk and Captal that John McCain, President Bush, John Kyl, Borwnback, and Senator Lindsey Graham among others spent o the immigration debate is not rewarded. Why should Republican that oppose the Death Penatly be any different. I mean in the irony of ironies Obama will be proclaimed by many Catholics as the true voice in solving the complicated issue of illegal immigration. Even though it was in large part to his poison pill amendment in the Senate that the whole thing died and thus we could not get over to the House.
The War is a issue that is debateable. Needless to say I am not sure at all that it is the Catholic view that there shoudl be a withdrawal of US forces. In fact I am not sure it is even the Vatican view
Is Racism a issue? I mean how many Republicans running are really racist or advocating racism
May 7, 2008 at 2:48 pm
I should clarify that I wasn’t suggesting that any particular candidates were advocating racism, just that it was one on the list of issues which the USCCB had identified as intrinsic evils.
I am concerned about attempts about attempts to crown the party with the mantle of Catholicism: The Church is as challenging to Republicans as Democrats. It is not about reward as much as it is about principle, about a constant assertion of that principle above and beyond political necessity.
That being said, I think feddie mentions rightly some other sources of action, which are about actively seeking to limit the number of (legal or illegal) abortions that occur.
May 7, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“I guess the question I ask as to the abortion issue is what more do you want the Republicans to do. I am all open to ideas how to advance the anti abortion agenda in the public square. It does appear that Bush and many other Republicans are doing what is all humanly possible on this front.”
You are doing absolutely the right thing. You are using your individual judgment and your analysis of the political system and the legislative process to advance the protection of human life and to make society more just. You are open minded to new ideas and strategies to achieve or advance these laudable goals. You have a good understanding that we have human and practical limitations as to what can be done. You understand that any positive advancement will require cooperation with others in civic life and that you must work with them and not demand rigid conformity of all participants in strategy, philosophy, etc. but instead allowing them to operate within a broad framework.
The only further item I would add is while you should act according to your best judgment, you should also respect others who are following their best judgment. This does not mean you cannot engage others and make the case for your judgment, but suggesting they have somehow made themselves unworthy for the sacraments is out of line.
May 7, 2008 at 3:12 pm
“That having been said, I have yet to see a persuasive case made that there are “proportionate reasons” that would justify a Catholic voting for a man who would deny children who survive abortions basic medical care.”
I would tend to agree with you.
May 7, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Katherine-
Then how can you possibly vote for Obama?
May 7, 2008 at 3:28 pm
LEt me say part of my frustration and perhaps is why I am a little snappy is it becoming more difficult not only to have Catholics tune in but the general public tune in to all these debates
I truly believe that forever reason American have an attention span of 5 minutes no matter what their viewpoint. It is very frustrating I suppose that with more information available to make choices and inform oneselve on issues that most people are tuning into something else. Catholic or otherwise.
The Civic , this goes beyond politics but just supporting projects in the community as a whole , engagement that was seen in my parents and even Grandparents generation does not even seem to a tenth of what is was. Why this is I don’t know.
Therefore I sometimes think we are all spinning our wheels.
Thsi is one reason why I wonder when the Bishops make statements , or various politcal Groups that have a Catholic focus do activities if anyone is even noticing
I sometimes think we are just talking among oursleves lol
May 7, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Thsi is one reason why I wonder when the Bishops make statements , or various politcal Groups that have a Catholic focus do activities if anyone is even noticing
I think there are many of us who hear the bishops. But I think only a few faithful actually listen.
May 7, 2008 at 9:05 pm
For those who would jump immediately into banning abortion outright in the U.S., I would encourage reading this excellent NYT article from 2006:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/magazine/09abortion.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin
“There are other countries in the world that, like El Salvador, completely ban abortion, including Malta, Chile and Colombia. El Salvador, however, has not only a total ban on abortion but also an active law-enforcement apparatus — the police, investigators, medical spies, forensic vagina inspectors and a special division of the prosecutor’s office responsible for Crimes Against Minors and Women, a unit charged with capturing, trying and incarcerating an unusual kind of criminal.”
I’m not saying that outright ban on abortion in the U.S. would create this kind of apparatus, but I think it’s worth considering the political consequences–if such a ban were enacted, how we would go about enforcing it, how strict we would be enforcing it, what the penalties should be for the doctors and women who commit it, etc.
While I feel abortion is a great evil, I feel that some of the methods that might be used to enforce strictly an abortion ban could lead to greater evils (restrictions on medical care, doctors informing on their patients, etc), and so a discussion of those political realities is absolutely necessary.
These are the sort of reasons why I tend toward increased outreach and working toward social change rather than forcing this decision via an abortion ban at the top.
May 7, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Dang MM – You still can’t get over the fact that people you support still push and actively support intrinsic evils themselves.
What’s it going to be – intrinsic evils are inexcusable, or they’re just inexcusable if you’re not obama?
May 7, 2008 at 9:37 pm
K Lo is the laughingstock of the blogging community. While I did get a “The Onion” style guffaw out of the title of this post, I must say that anyone who takes the rantings of Lopez seriously should be fitted with a straightjacket anyway.
May 8, 2008 at 12:34 am
Katherine:
There seems to be a notion presented here that abortions happen because they are legal. That is obviously not the case. Abortions have been around for a long time; and, legal or not, will continue to be around for a long time. So the practical goal then is to reduce the amount of abortions as much as we can. And what have the Republicans done to accomplish this? They have turned a human issue into a political issue, in order to corner the market on the “values” voter. The cost of this has been to stop all real discussion that might lead to accomplishing that practical goal.
May 8, 2008 at 7:31 am
Does anyone see the inconsistency? Support bombing population sites, the death penalty, while you oppose heath care and do not care about the poor.
I know the argument of the “unborn is innocent”.
The support of life has to be consistent. Moreover, there is a way to rationally make logical public policy without being dogmatic.
Recent studies have confirmed that states with comprehensive education to young people also have the lowest abortion rates(they also happen to be pro-choice, eg MA), and the states that are most virulently anti-choice(MS, AL, WY)have the highest teen pregnancy rates, and teens tend to have multiple sex partners.
We as parents cannot bury our heads in the sand and keep our children ignorant.
As christians we cannot shut our eyes to injustice in any form, and we cannot allow “theocons” to continue to hijack the discussion.
May 8, 2008 at 8:46 am
“Katherine-
Then how can you possibly vote for Obama?”
Feddie –
How can people who claim to be advocating for the highest virtue imply things that are false and inaccurate?
May 8, 2008 at 10:19 am
Katherine-
Are you honestly going to defend Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive legislation? Obama is radically proabortion.
May 8, 2008 at 12:11 pm
“Katherine-
Are you honestly going to defend Obama’s opposition to the Born Alive legislation? Obama is radically proabortion.”
feddie,
If, as you assert, Obama denied children who survive abortions basic medical care in 2003, can you explain why Senator McCain has never made any move to protect them in all of the years hence?
May 8, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“If, as you assert, Obama denied children who survive abortions basic medical care in 2003, can you explain why Senator McCain has never made any move to protect them in all of the years hence?”
Congress passed a federal version of the bill Obama helped kill, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, in 2002. The law passed unanimously in the Senate.
But I suspect, given the odd way you worded your question, that you already know this.
May 8, 2008 at 12:58 pm
WOW some of you people are scary indeed!I mean how many babies a year survive an abortion? are you kidding me?And if in some freak accident a baby were to survive the procidure Im sure it would be so thoroughly unviable that extreme measures would need to be enacted to save it and while we would be spending money to do that there are millions of americans in this country who dont have access to primary care.But I guess they are ALIVE and not theoretical and cost money so they can go to hell!SAVE THE BABIES{AS LONG AS THEIR NOT BORN YET}!
May 8, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Lopez is a wingnut of the first order. She has another piece touting that the Limbaughs and Delays are still firmly in control of the GOP and lauds the party for its efforts to keep Rev. Wright in the news. She apparently thinks these are things to be cheering about, as the GOP continues its usual sleezy methods. She fits right in at the NRO, they live and play in an alternate universe. I love em. They are almost always good for a laugh, and they don’t allow comments.! LOL wonder why!
May 8, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Blackadder Says:
May 8, 2008 at 12:48 pm
“If, as you assert, Obama denied children who survive abortions basic medical care in 2003, can you explain why Senator McCain has never made any move to protect them in all of the years hence?”
Congress passed a federal version of the bill Obama helped kill, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, in 2002. The law passed unanimously in the Senate.
But I suspect, given the odd way you worded your question, that you already know this.
Yes. And had I been a member of the Illinois Senate in 2003, I would have voted for that bill, contrary to (then State-)Senator Obama’s abstention.
Having said that, it is not quite honest to say Senator Obama “would deny children who survive abortions basic medical care” when he simply didn’t support passing a state law that including in it a provision that repeated what was already made a federal crime a year before. Without defending Obama’s action, I think being disingenuosu about it harms the integrity of the pro-life movement.
I don’t deny that Senator Obama is pro-choice. And I strongly disagree with him on that particular matter. But Senator Obama has spoken with the substantial and organized pro-life caucus in his campaign (”Pro-Lifers for Obama”) and assured us that as President, he will support the 2002 federal law. He also said that he wants to move beyond these rhetorical skirmishes between pro-life and pro-choice activists and find effective means of reducing abortion.
I would never insist that anyone else is morally obligated to accept his invitation. I hope there continues to be a strong, effective movement working on legal restriction on abortion. But we have had eight years of a “pro-life” President with his party in charge of Congress for six of those years. We have seen what they have done and I applaud any accomplishments they have made on the pro-life front.
However, if the Republicans have more pro-life “tricks in their bag” I have to wonder why they didn’t play them already. Was it to string out pro-lifers for our political support over time?
For me, I’m ready to try to find success in a different approach. I reserve to right to swing back to any other strategy. But for the most part, I conclude that after their years in power, the Republicans have either exhausted what they are willing to do, or are deliberating holding back. I want to give Senator Obama a chance to make good on his offer. He has convinced me that he has respect for pro-lifers and wants a true dialogue and collaboration with us.
And for those (not here, but elsewhere) who say this makes me destined for hell and unworthy of the sacraments of my church, well, contact me privately if you want to know what I think of you.
May 8, 2008 at 4:51 pm
“[H]ad I been a member of the Illinois Senate in 2003, I would have voted for that bill, contrary to (then State-)Senator Obama’s abstention. Having said that, it is not quite honest to say Senator Obama “would deny children who survive abortions basic medical care” when he simply didn’t support passing a state law that including in it a provision that repeated what was already made a federal crime a year before.”
There are several factual inaccuracies in what you say here:
1) The bill in question was first introduced in 2001, and was first voted on by the Illinois legislature during the 2001 session (before the federal bill was passed). It was on this vote that Obama voted present (he did, however, speak in opposition to the bill, saying it was unconstitutional).
2) In 2002, the bill was re-introduced. Obama voted against the bill in committee and was the sole speaker against the bill on the Senate floor (he claimed that it would burden physicians).
3) The bill was again reintroduced in 2003 and came before a committee Obama was chairing. He did not vote against the bill in 2003, or even vote “present” on it, because he didn’t have to. He simply never called the bill up for a vote.
4) The federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act did not create any new crimes. Rather, it simply made clear that all existing federal protections applied to children who were born alive during an abortion. As there is no generally applicable federal statute against murder, it is false to suggest that the federal law somehow rendered the Illinois bill redundant.
May 8, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Katherine,
While I understand your desire to “try something new” on the theory that the Republicans have tried all the “tricks in their bag”, this ignores the possibility that Obama will (and indeed, he has already promised to in some regards) roll back elements of progress already made. Absolutely without question he would add federal funding to push abortions abroad and at home. And he may do a great deal more.
And that’s leaving aside the fact he would work hard to reverse the recent direction of the Supreme Court with his appointments (luckily, he’d probably only have the chance to replace liberals), which serves the purpose of frustrating any efforts by those seeking to outlaw abortion at any level — an enterprise that you say that you wish well.
What exactly are we supposed to imagine that Obama _will_ do to help reduce abortion other than gladly accept the votes of any pro-lifers willing to convince themselves to vote for him?
May 12, 2008 at 9:37 am
The morality of action of the nuns in Indiana have zip to do with KJL’s remarks. They will be judged on what they did–support pro-abortion candidates–not on what some one else supported.
May 12, 2008 at 9:40 am
Katherine, seriously, you would vote for Obama? The man is a MARXIST, utterly incompatible with Catholicism.
This election is a dreadful choice for the lesser evil, but to support a Marxist is hardly the lesser evil.