Kansas Bishops’ Voter Guide
LifeNews claims that a new voter guide by the Kansas Bishops says, “Voting for a Pro-Abortion Candidate is evil.”* However, LifeNews is not portraying what the voter guide said (nor is it so new, but from 2006; it’s just being re-issued). LifeNews is interpreting the text with questionable hermeneutics, adding words not in it to undermine other portions of the text itself. The guide says:
Notwithstanding a possible diversity of prudential judgments, each of us should guide our decision-making on such issues by a fundamental respect for the dignity of every human person from the moment of conception to natural death.
This is not controversial; it’s basic Catholic teaching. The document points out that in our political activity, people will try different methods and means to reach the same end, thus prudential judgments are going to be made when acting out one’s civil responsibilities. Obviously some means are wrong; but we can’t say they are wrong just because they differ from our method — you have to do more work than that to show a suggested method is invalid.
When making our decisions, we cannot dismiss the value of the human person — at any stage of life. From conception to death, life is sacred, and the person who is alive deserves human dignity. Notice, as the guide rightfully points out, pro-life issus are not merely ones dealing with abortion (and euthanasia), but include those dealing with the human dignity. “It is also the basis for the right to those things needed live with dignity, for example, productive work and fair wages, food and shelter, education and health care, protection from harm, and the right to move from one country to another when these things are not available to us at home.”
The guide, like many, lists a non-exhaustive list of intrinsic evils, including: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, pornography and racism. It makes it clear we cannot support intrinsic evil (we must remember, this includes those intrinsic evils not listed in the document; making an example some does not make them more important). “Concerning choices that are intrinsically evil, Catholics may not promote or even remain indifferent to them.” But it does not say that making a specific vote in an election is necessarily a support for intrinsic evil. That’s because it can’t. One’s prudential reasoning might lead to a candidate whose policy includes an intrinsic evil, but voting for them inspite of it is not supporting that evil. Promoting evil takes a higher level of cooperation. And to vote for someone inspite of their support for an intrinsic evil is not an act of indifference; indeed, one could make that particular vote with disgust for that evil which points out why it is not indicative of indifference. Of course, one must have proportionate reasons for their choice; but those reasons are an issue of prudence, and one’s conscience must be followed in making them, as the Kansas Bishops’ guide makes clear, “We have a serious duty to follow the guidance of conscience. To act against the judgment of conscience when it is certain about what is good and evil has the same seriousness as disobeying God.”
I hope that if people limit discussion of intrinsic evils to the issue of abortion, they are not doing this so as to allow themselves to be indifferent to other intrinsic evils. They could be, but they don’t have to be. Just as a Catholic focused on a different evil does not have to be indifferent to abortion. It’s never right to be indifferent to evil even for the sake of a greater good. Obviously, some Catholics will vote for Obama indifferent to his stand on abortion, others will vote for McCain indifferent to his support for ESCR. Both will be wrong when they do so. But that doesn’t make one who votes for either is necessarily indifferent to abortion or ESCR, or that they support abortion or ESCR. What it means is that they are doing what always happens in choosing a candidate in a democratic election, voting for someone who has both good and bad, but whom the voter believes will end up promoting more good and less evil than any other candidate.
*LifeSiteNews says “Kansas State Bishops Declare Voting For Abortion Candidate is ‘Evil.’”
Comments are closed.
Just one more section I should quote from, “So, when there is no choice of a candidate that avoids supporting intrinsically evil actions, especially elective abortion, we should vote in such a way as to allow the least harm to innocent human life and dignity. We would not be acting immorally therefore if we were to vote for a candidate who is not totally acceptable in order to defeat one who poses an even greater threat to human life and dignity.”
Now “Vote in such a way as to allow the least harm” is a prudential decision. People have to speculate as to which policy is going to cause the least harm. Thus one can ” vote for a candidate who is not totally acceptable in order to defeat one who poses an even greater threat” without it being an immoral vote. Just because you think your candidate is that one does not mean the person who chooses the other candidate will not have reasons to think their candidate will do the less harm. This is where it is possible for two people to disagree, vote for two different candidates, and neither to be acting immoral in doing so.
As I understand it, formal cooperation with evil, material cooperation with evil, remote material cooperation with evil, and proportionate reasons are all highly technical concepts, which, in the hands of those without a deep understanding of them, can be easily misunderstood or abused. Many discussions I have seen on the web strongly imply that since a million (or more) abortions are performed in the United States every year, and John McCain opposes abortion, it is necessary to come up with a rationale by which you can plausibly demonstrate Obama would save an equal number of lives to balance out the ones lost to abortion.
It seems to me there is something very wrong with that reasoning, since it would give a “pro-life” candidate running against a “pro-choice” candidate license do things such as reinstitute slavery, start totally unjust wars, reverse the First Amendment and ban the practice of Catholicism, and virtually anything else, no matter how destructive our outrageous or damaging to the country, that wouldn’t sacrifice a million lives. That just doesn’t make sense to me.
I forgot to say in the message above, however, that it is difficult to read the various official Catholic statements about the morality of voting (or at least read them without being an expert in all the various moral theories invoked) without the distinct feeling that if each one of them had just one more sentence, it would be, “Consequently, you can’t vote for Obama.”
David
The way I think people try to interpret them is that; however, how the documents themselves are worded are not that way. Because they do tell us all intrinsic evils are to be avoided, and it tells us we must look to find the way which best keeps the dignity of life when all sides are fighting against it (and McCain and Obama are both doing so). That is where prudence and conscience comes in; that is what so many forget. And it is why it is important to realize that voting is always a prudential decision, and must be judged accordingly, and not by absolutes which no side works to support.
This is why when I say I will not vote for McCain nor will I vote for Obama, it is not within my authority to point the blame to someone whose prudence and conscience leads them to a different conclusion. Everyone should stop playing that card, and instead argue on the nature of prudence as to why they think their position is greater; that then will end the impasse in discussions, and really follows through with what the Bishops, and even the Pope, have/has written. Of course, if someone were to say, “I am voting for X to allow for greater abortion, and I think he will help make for it” then of course, I can judge because the motive is capable of being judged as evil. That is not what people are doing if they say voting for someone despite their position on an intrinsic evil. To equate the two is dishonest.
Abortion starts with the same letter as what it is in American politics – Alibi.
I’d say it’s fair to disregard it entirely, since nothing’s gonna change one way
or the other. Republicans just figured out it’s a great way to get votes without
having to do anything whatsoever. When Bush says “culture of life”, millions of
conservative Christians start to swoon like the Obama fan who yelled out “He
touched me !!!”
I know the spiel, since I played it myself. (Spiel being the German word for game)
Apart from some genuinely caring pro-lifers, I gotta say that many of those you’ll encounter online are the most uncaring, nasty, judgmental people I’ve ever come across. But they’ll pray for you. The old adage ‘once you’re born, you’re on your own’ doesn’t come out of nowhere. George Carlin put it a little more drastically.
Of course, lefties can be full of it just as much. I remind you of MM’s post title that the Democrats’ abortion stance ‘disappoints’.
When ideologues come to your door (or JW’s, or Mormons) tell them Jack Nicholson’s line from As Good As It Gets – “Go sell crazy someplace else, we’re all stocked up here.”
Who is behind Lifesite? I contend that their deliberate and wilful distortion of this document is a grave sin. I am more and more convinced that many Catholics on the right cannot escapeteh blinkers of American dualism, especially when compared with how Catholics in othe countries handle moral issues in the public square.
Case in point: McCain opposes abortion, Obama supports abortion. A million abortions take place a year. Ergo, you cannot vote for McCain. Completely lost in this facile logic is the notion that neither Obama nor McCain can do much in their role as president to influence the number of abortions. For sure, some of Obama’s policies would surely lead to more abortions (such as increased public funding) but it is also quite likely that his other social and economic policies would reduce abortion and outweigh the positive effect. Meanshile, abortion would not change under McCain, and yet I could foresee millions of dead children arising directly from his juvenile bellicosity.
“Vote in the way as to allow the least harm”. That really hits the nail on the head. What these dualist Catholics fail to understand is that Barack Obama will answer to God for his positions (though I think Bush and Cheney will be in a tougher spot). The conscientious voter who opposes abortion and votes on the basis of the “least harm”, an happens to choose Obama based on this consideration, is not implicated in this sin.
MM, I’ve fleshened out this point: http://www.geraldnaus.com/?p=10782
Btw, McCain doesn’t, thankfully, oppose abortion to save the life of the mother. To the staunch Catholic, that makes him pro-abortion, no ?
(My hopes for the elections: McCain for president, Democratic Congress)
Lifesite had a pretty terrible distortion in a recent article on a prominent gay activist who “admitted” that there may not be a gay gene. Lifesite = no good.
Lifesite and Lifenews are actually two different sites. This article apparently is in LifeNews (the link in the post is correct, but not the name.)
Lifesitenews claims to be a news agency. Yes, with headlines such as “Study finds: women happiest barefoot in kitchen”, “Gay man admits he’s intrinsically disordered”, “Contraception will cause growth of third ear” and the like.
Here some actual headlines from there
“Dems Plan Subtle Changes to Party Platform to Lure Catholic, Evangelical Votes at Convention”
“A Catholic case against Barack by Pat Buchanan” (Pat “I heart Dolfi” Buchanan ??)
“Voters Trust Extreme Positions More Than Moderate Ones, Study Finds”
“Humans Are Not 98% Genetically Identical to Chimpanzees”
CTD
Ok, here is the lifesitenews version of it: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081207.html
But you are right; so changing the post slightly.
But if you go to “http://www.lifesitenews.com/” you will see “Kansas State Bishops Declare Voting For Abortion Candidate is ‘Evil.’” I admit, I got the links confused when I first did the post, since I saw both and read both.
Btw, where was Alan Keyes (quoted there a lot) ambassador to ? Mars ?
He is of course the reason Obama is the messiah.
Don’t blame yourself, Henry, they’re both kooky sites, hard to tell apart :)
Gerald
They are, and you can see how having both links open, it’s easy to hit the wrong one and focus on the wrong one (since I did want to focus on LifeSiteNews, which I think is the bigger of the two).
I’ve always thought how LifeSite treated the Harry Potter series is indicative of how poor their reasoning skills have been; just look here: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08072412.html
Or this famously false claim (Benedict was against Potter): http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/jun/05062709.html
To see how false that claim was, this article is good: http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=26
where was Alan Keyes (quoted there a lot) ambassador to ? Mars ?
Close. He was ambassador to the UN.
As I understand it, formal cooperation with evil, material cooperation with evil, remote material cooperation with evil, and proportionate reasons are all highly technical concepts, which, in the hands of those without a deep understanding of them, can be easily misunderstood or abused.
This is exactly right, and I have seen this all over the Catholic blogosphere. “Formal” and “material” cooperation has roots in a metaphysical and ethic distinction, which finds its context in Scholastic theology. “Proportionate reasons” is not a mathematical concept of symmetry, as some have suggested, but is an ethical concept. Ratzinger did not explain these terms in his letter because it was a private letter to be circulated among the U.S. bishops who would presumaby have a familiarity with such concepts. But once it was leaked out to the public before the bishops could provide the proper hermeneutic, the letter became a weapon for many conservative Catholics for deployment in everything from justifying their support of the Iraq War to claiming that there is nothing in proportion to abortion (the latter being a misunderstanding of the intent of “proportionate reasons,” substituting a mathematical rationale for an ethical one). The need for Catholic theologians and philosophers is very grave in our contemporary times when self-appointed apologists and non-specialists attempt to interpret heavily loaded terminology.
Poli: I find it amazing that in so many right-wing Catholic circles, they quote this letter, under the assumption that it is something new. And you are right– it is a short private letter than assumes familiarity with the underlying moral theology– a familiarity that the folk who exploit this letter simply do not possess.
LifeSiteNews puts out many distortions. I remember discussing this in my post on President Lugo, whom LifeSiteNews characterized as a “renegade bishop” and a rabid liberation theologian. Of course, neither is true. LifeSiteNews, like CWN, often–but not always–is guilty of perspectivism in its journalism. Objectivity is impossible to acheive, but one can mitigate one’s perspectivism.
Case in point: McCain opposes abortion, Obama supports abortion. A million abortions take place a year. Ergo, you cannot vote for Obama. Completely lost in this facile logic is the notion that neither Obama nor McCain can do much in their role as president to influence the number of abortions.
MM, an attempt at an explanation: I think the reason so many people think this way is that they cannot stand the thought of voting for someone who supports abortion. Even if they did recognize that a president has only a limited impact on abortion rates, they fact that someone otherwise intelligent supports it indicates such an amorality that voting for him/her is seen as impossible.
And frankly, I’m sympathetic to that line of thought. It’s near-impossible for me to foresee a scenario in which I could vote for someone who supports a legal right to abortion, given the “thought” process required to arrive at such a conclusion. How can I trust such a person to the highest political office in the land?
On another note, I don’t trust LSN much, either, especially given the Potter fiasco.
It’s near-impossible for me to foresee a scenario in which I could vote for someone who supports a legal right to abortion, given the “thought” process required to arrive at such a conclusion.
Same here. And it’s even more impossible for me to foresee a scenario in which I could vote for someone who supports ESCR, which will cheaper life more than abortion and result in exponential rises in the murder of persons. Hence, McCain is no better than Obama on life.
You know, I thought the same thing sometime after I wrote my first post. You’re right, of course, that what I wrote applies as well to McCain, insofar as he supports ESCR.
Why, then, will I vote for a man (McCain) in whom wisdom is so absent? For reasons which have been debated endlessly here at VN: 1. because of the *chance* that he will appoint SCOTUS judges who recognize the legal folly of Roe, a chance which is completely absent with Obama; 2. b/c he does oppose abortion… it doesn’t make up for his view on ESCR, but it does make him marginally better than Obama.
I think the comments posted show a studied avoidance of the bishops’ reference to intrinsic evil. We can never support an intrinsic evil – prohibitive commands like “Thou shalt not kill” are ALWAYS binding. Most comments advocate doing just that, on grounds that an Obama vote is in the long run supporting fewer intrinsic evils. But it is never permitted to do an evil (i.e. vote to support a rabidly pro-abortion candidate when a pro-life one is available) EVEN TO LIMIT MORE EVIL OR PROMOTE GOOD, even an obviously greater good or worse evil.
Besides, not all intrinsic evils are equal. Even Cardinal Bernadine pointed that out, the right to life is the basis of ALL rights; seamless garment does not imply that all social justice issues are equal! All the best social programs possible would not be morally justified by even the cost of one murdered child, much less forty million. But every vote for Obama, in the circumstances of this election (pro-life candidate available) says the babies will have to go, in order to achieve benefits for for the rest of us.