Biden and Chaput
After recent comments by Joe Biden along the lines that he is opposed to abortion, but will not withdraw his support for the “right” to abortion on the grounds that it is a “personal and private issue”, Archbishops Chaput of Denver issued a rebuke. Chaput was quite right to point out that abortion is a foundational issue, one that always involves the taking of innocent human life, and thus cannot be relegated to the domain of private morality. In his fascinating book on Catholics and the Democratic party, Michael Sean Winters argues convincingly that Kennedy’s defense against the dominant anti-Catholicism of the time– that his religion was a private matter and would not affect policy– was a wrong turn for the Democratic party. For a party at the forefront of the civil rights movement, a movement dominated by Christianity, it simply was not credible to invoke this defense in the matter of abortion and overlook it on civil rights.
That said, Archbishop Chaput seriously oversteps. Here is what he says:
“Roe is bad law. As long as it stands, it prevents returning the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, so that the American people can decide its future through fair debate and legislation.”
With this statement, Chaput is undercutting the basis of his own argument, and indeed, mixing moral absolutes with prudential judgments concerning political strategies. Let’s think this through a little. Assume Roe is no more. A very likely scenario would be for the largest states accounting for the great majority of abortions to immediately introduce legislation codifying the provisions of Roe, and this would garner the support of a majority of the electorate. By the logic of Chaput, that would be fine, as it’s a case of the American people deciding “through fair debate and legislation”. But of course this is not so as such laws would be as grievously wrong as Roe.
The passage from Evanegelium Vitae on democracy, quoted by MZ recently, is relevant here:
“Democracy cannot be idolized to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality. Fundamentally, democracy is a “system” and as such is a means and not an end. Its “moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs. If today we see an almost universal consensus with regard to the value of democracy, this is to be considered a positive “sign of the times”, as the Church’s Magisterium has frequently noted. But the value of democracy stands or falls with the values which it embodies and promotes. Of course, values such as the dignity of every human person, respect for inviolable and inalienable human rights, and the adoption of the “common good” as the end and criterion regulating political life are certainly fundamental and not to be ignored.”
I’m confident that Chaput was not trying to hold the ideals of democracy above the natural law, but his drafting was sloppy, amenable to such a mis-interpretation. But one thing is pellucidly clear: he seems to embody the same inability to see beyond Roe that afflicts much of what calls itself the pro-life movement. Thinking beyond Roe means an honest acknowledgement that reducing abortion in this country means addressing the culture directly, by being a witness to a consistent ethic of life and promoting the kinds of social and economic policies that support the bearing and rearing of children in our society– this is not merely an end in itself, but a necessary condition for changing people’s minds and hearts on abortion, which is essential in a democracy. It can be done. The strong stance of the Church on the death penalty over the past decade or so has contributed to diminishing support for this form of punishment in the United States. And one thing is for sure: the narrow political agenda of much of the pro-life movement is only going to backfire.
In a previous interview, Chaput seemed to recognize these issues, when he stated:
“You can have good Catholics who say that they’re not for the criminalization of abortion, or they want to take gradual steps toward eliminating it by convincing the public that this is a bad thing. Those are all legitimate political positions-as long as you’re really moving towards the goal of protecting unborn human life. You at least have to have the goal.”
I think one thing that frustrates Chaput, and rightly so, is that such an approach can relieve the pressure on the crop of pro-Roe politicians. They can continue about their business while adopting a position which is patently unjustifiable. But none of this is either-or. Promoting a consistent ethic of life includes shouting quite loudly that the unborn need some legal protection, that abortion can in no cicumstances be seen as a “right”, and that we need to be working toward that ultimate position. But it does not mean singling out certain politicians while letting others off the hook. Because it’s not so simple.
For example, Joe Biden actually opposes public funding for abortion and partial-birth abortion. Does he not deserve credit for that? After all, in the debates about whether an Obama presidency would have much impact on the abortion rate, it is often pointed that he would have a direct impact by public funding. Clearly, Biden’s proximity to each act of abortion is thus lessened, and the voter’s proportionately so. And yet he still insists on this “right”. What about McCain? A decent record on the legislative side, and yet he has equivocated on Roe, and refuses to talk about abortion in his campaign, suggesting it will simply not be a priority. At the same time, the Democratic platform includes for the first time language to reduce the number of abortions and to provide assistance to women to carry their child to term. Obama even noted this in his speech. Not only was McCain silent on abortion, but his party removed similar provisions from its platform.
So, while it’s clear that supporting Roe can in no sense be justified, and folks like Biden should be rebuked for saying otherwise, the choice of the voter on the abortion issue alone, even forgetting for a minute the multitude of other issues, is not so clearcut. And anybody who tells you different is selling something else.
Comments are closed.
If Roe v Wade is bad law, why doesn’t Archbishop Chaput put pressure on the five Catholics who have it within their power to overturn it — Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy? Biden and Pelosi are small fry when it comes to the abortion issue.
Why is there no Catholic criticism of the Supreme Court?
Are not Catholics in the public square, with the ability to write and vote upon the law, obligated to seek an end to this practice through the mechanism of law? The Church strongly maintains that embryos and fetuses deserve the protection of the law at every single stage. It is not feasible to be in good standing – claiming the Catholic faith – be “personally opposed” and so on – and yet take public actions contrary. If one insists otherwise, as Pelosi and Biden and Ridge and others do – they should do the honest thing, and that which is most healthy for their soul – and leave the Church.
Yet Obama – and I would love to hear Biden speak on this – seeks, radically, to codify the “right” to abortion into law as his first legislative priority. This would include taxpayer support, among other things.
“The first right of the human person is his life . . . It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others; all discrimination is evil. . . Any discrimination based on the various stages of life is no more justified any other discrimination. . . . In reality, respect for human life is called for from the time that the process of generation begins. From the time that the ovum is fertilized, a life is begun which is neither that of the father nor of the mother; it is rather the life of a new human being with his own growth.”
–Declaration on Procured Abortion, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (1974), paragraphs 11-12.
David,
The significant difference is that judges do not (or rather should not) craft the law. But you are right to suggest that the real power center when it comes to abortion law is the SC, because in 1973 they overreached hugely and removed abortion from the legislative process.
David:
Excellent question, since the Court is genesis of this so-called right. Not only should nearly all of the attention be focued here, but I find it intriguing that Joe Biden is told by some he can’t receive communion while people like Tony Kennedy who actually vote for this right get off scot free. It shows that politics is the name of the game, doesn’t it?
Kennedy was wrong in Casey. I expect that the other Catholic justices, however, would support returning abortion policy back over to the people and their elected officials. Everyone knows what the game is at the nomination hearings, especially since Bork.
But David and MM: do you not see the differences between legislators and judges on this? It’s much too much of a hack partisan point to suggest: “oh, yes, those hypocrites.”
ANY Catholic legislator who supports abortion through the crafting and changing of law places their soul in danger via this direct support of homocide and should thus refrain from Communion. The reason this is a big problem for Democrats when it comes to Catholic voters is that most Catholic Democrats in Congress, and all who have run for president in that party since 1973, support this “right.”
The significant difference is that judges do not (or rather should not) craft the law.
jonathanjones,
Judges do not craft the law, but they certainly can reverse a Supreme Court decision that was wrongly decided. Isn’t it their duty to do so? Talk about formal and material cooperation! All they need to do is reverse Roe v Wade. Does the argument of stare decisis or “settled law” hold water when you believe that over a million lives are lost a year because of a bad decision? I am not saying they should be “activist judges.” If Roe v Wade was wrongly decided, as practically everybody thinks it was, what principles are the five Catholic justices on the Supreme Court clinging to to avoid reversing the decision, and how important are those principals in the light of the evil the Church attributes to Roe?
If it would be in any way wrong of the five Catholics on the Court right now to reverse Roe, what would make it right to pick the next couple of replacements to get the job done?
If you focus solely on Roe, and hold it to be foundational, then who is cooperating more in evil: the judge who affirms the “right” to abortion, or the politician who supports this “right” while having absolutely no power to affect it one way or the other? Do you not see this?
To go on “discussing” the campaign and having “conversations” about the “issues” with supporters of McCain/Palin is pointless; in fact it is worse than pointless — it offers material cooperation with evil.
The Republican campaign is the enactment of a deeply depraved psycho-sexual murder fantasy, which must no longer be countenanced with the concession that it is somehow accessible to reason.
There is nothing to discuss, nothing to decide.
But David and MM: do you not see the differences between legislators and judges on this? It’s much too much of a hack partisan point to suggest: “oh, yes, those hypocrites.”
I see a difference between legislators and judges. But we are talking here about a Supreme Court case that almost all conservatives and many liberals agree was wrongly decided. I am not suggesting that the Court scrutinize the Constitution and invent some new principle to undo Roe. I am suggesting that they reverse it on the grounds that it was wrongly decided.
What is the argument against reversing Roe if it was wrongly decided?
And Jonathan, nothing I have written contradicts anythuing in the excerpt from the Declaration you have quoted. But if you want to quote the Declaration, we need to remember this too:
“It is the task of law to pursue a reform of society and of conditions of life in all milieux, starting with the most deprived, so that always and everywhere it may be possible to give every child coming into this world a welcome worthy of a person. Help for families and for unmarried mothers, assured grants for children, a statute for illegitimate children and reasonable arrangements for adoption – a whole positive policy must be put into force so that there will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion.”
But this was stripped from the Republican platform. Like I said, you cannot say one party in the present environment is “pro-life” and the other is not.
“For example, Joe Biden actually opposes public funding for abortion and partial-birth abortion. Does he not deserve credit for that?” — Morning’s Minion, September 10
“As the senator said in his interview, he has opposed public funding for abortions. To his great credit,he also backed a successful ban on partial-birth abortions.” — Archbishop Chaput, September 9
There is no one quick strike to fix the anti-life issues.
MM – “With this statement, Chaput is undercutting the basis of his own argument, and indeed, mixing moral absolutes with prudential judgments concerning political strategies. Let’s think this through a little. Assume Roe is no more. A very likely scenario would be for the largest states accounting for the great majority of abortions to immediately introduce legislation codifying the provisions of Roe, and this would garner the support of a majority of the electorate.”
I do not believe Archbishop Chaput is undercutting his argument but rather not explaining the entire strategy for addressing the issue in the interest of directness and brevity. There are many threads to pull, including but not limited to:
- change hearts and minds, especially of the faithful, there have been many programs in place for some time on educating the faithful and and the general population and more is needed
- remove the enabler – Roe v Wade, an absolute must
- once the enable is removed there will be a move for legislation on both sides of the debate, this is where the changing of hearts and minds must be acted on, as well as reminding Catholic legislators and executives of the natural law and their obligations as faithful Catholic Christians
- provide alternatives and support to pregnant mothers, again there are programs in place but this needs additional work
The comment on “fair debate” addresses two points: 1- fair debate is accepted medium for enacting legislation where natural law views can be expressed and argued; 2- with Roe in place there can be no debate let alone a fair debate since the debate option was usurped by an over-reaching judiciary.
The focus on Biden is due to he being Catholic and using that position in the political process to advance his position. In advancing his position he misstates Church teaching and misguides the audience with an erroneous use of St. Augustine.
Thus, I do not believe Archbishop Chaput undercut his own argument.
With this statement, Chaput is undercutting the basis of his own argument, and indeed, mixing moral absolutes with prudential judgments concerning political strategies.
Yes, this is what I thought when I read that statement as well. At best, Chaput is being really sloppy. At worst, he’s simply parroting the Republican platform. Either way, his “leave it up to the states” approach undermines authentic Catholic teaching on killing innocent life.
“Either way, his “leave it up to the states” approach undermines authentic Catholic teaching on killing innocent life.”
How does it undermine authentic Catholic teaching?
“Promoting a consistent ethic of life includes shouting quite loudly that the unborn need some legal protection, that abortion can in no cicumstances be seen as a ‘right’, and that we need to be working toward that ultimate position.”
This is exactly why no Catholic of good conscience can support Obama.
How does it undermine authentic Catholic teaching?
Zach,
Isn’t the “leave it up to the states” approach much like “leave it up to the woman and her physician” only on a larger scale? The Church’s position is that any law that allows choice on the matter is an unjust law. Why is a solution that leaves it up to the states any more just than leaving it up to the woman and her doctor?
Regarding the Supreme Court, I think it’s widely believed that Alito would vote to overturn Roe. If the other four Catholics can’t bring themselves to do so, why haven’t Catholics called on them to resign?
For all the talk from the pro-life movement of abortion being a monstrous evil (perhaps the most monstrous evil ever), it seems to me that there is a pretty laid back strategy to do away with it. Anti-Vietnam-war protesters back in the 1960s and 1970s put themselves on the line far more than pro-lifers do. Has anyone moved to another country or stopped paying taxes to protest abortion in the United States?
If you focus solely on Roe, and hold it to be foundational, then who is cooperating more in evil: the judge who affirms the “right” to abortion, or the politician who supports this “right” while having absolutely no power to affect it one way or the other? Do you not see this?
The SC in 1973 made Roe foundational on the abortion question because they disallowed the state legislatures from legislating on this issue. As for the judge, he or she clearly cooperates, directly, with a judicial fiat on abortion. Unfortunately, since Bork, Democractic candidates for president have strongly affirmed that they will appoint justices who would affirm Roe. Obama very much included. As for the politician, we can count on two hands those Catholics the Democratic Party in both houses of Congress who adhere to the Church’s teaching that the unborn require legal protection.
However one feels about the GOP, the opposition party is completely, totally, wholly, unacceptable on abortion.
Knuckle Dragger,
With all respect, a Catholic of good conscience can support Obama, if they believe he will best promote the common good. They cannot support him for being pro-choice or pro-family-planning in general, but if they believe other proportionate reasons exist that justify their vote for him, then to that vote they are entitled.
Of course, they may be gravely mistaken that such proportionate reasons exist, and that is what we need to argue. But we should give Catholics who support Obama the benefit of the doubt and not, at least immediately, call into question the state of their conscience.
Catholics of good conscience who happen to be Democrats need to challenge their politicians to change their policies that are hostile to unborn human life. We really need Democrats who are strongly opposed to abortion and who are unafraid to call their party on their support of such a grave evil.
But this was stripped from the Republican platform. Like I said, you cannot say one party in the present environment is “pro-life” and the other is not.
But we may say that the Republican Party is much better suited for, friendly towards, and open to the Catholic positions on matters such as ESCR, abortion, cloning, and that those voters who value these issues most are right to do so – especially with regards to mass unborn homocide.
This is not to defend the GOP or state that Catholics should vote for them or that the natural home for Catholics is the Republican Party (as you have said of the Democratic Party). But it is to say that the Democrats are in complete lock-step with the abortion lobby – seeking to codify abortion as a right in law, grant federal funding, stop parental notification, and on down the line – and that any voter who supports this, however indirectly, should think long and hard.
David N,
The first step in changing the law is returning the legislative power to the states. Unless you want to wage a revolution and overthrow the current political order, this is the only option. We are not going to pass a human life amendment in a sufficient number of states – there isn’t popular support for such a measure.
From the original post:
A very likely scenario would be for the largest states accounting for the great majority of abortions to immediately introduce legislation codifying the provisions of Roe, and this would garner the support of a majority of the electorate. By the logic of Chaput, that would be fine, as it’s a case of the American people deciding “through fair debate and legislation”.
This is your logical fallacy. You take the Chaput quote saying that abortion should be returned to the legislatures – which is 100 percent correct – and then make the leap that Chaput thinks this would be “fine,” as you put it, because abortion has returned to the electoral process from judicial fiat.
I think you know this suggestion is very misleading. Chaput has been (rightfully) outspoken in his belief that the unborn deserve legal protections, and that Catholics are obliged to support this – otherwise, they should lay down the Catholic banner and stop claiming it (rightfully). Your characterization of his position is at best half complete. I hope that all Catholic Republicans and (especially – this is desperately needed) Democrats in positions of public responsibility come to share Chaput’s views.
No, MM is correct. The wording of Chaput is sloppy. The whole concept of a non-negotiable is an act that cannot be made righteous by plurality of belief. When he states, “As long as [Roe v. Wade] stands, it prevents returning the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, so that the American people can decide its future through fair debate and legislation,” he is explicitly offering legitmacy to the belief that abortion can be made righteous by the will of the people. The root of inviolability of the rights of the unborn does not come from the consent of the governed but from natural law.
Okay, so let’s examine the text.
“Public Servants and Moral Reasoning”
http://www.catholicexchange.com/2008/09/09/113705
Chaput writes:
“Abortion is a foundational issue; it is not an issue like housing policy or the price of foreign oil. It always involves the intentional killing of an innocent life, and it is always, grievously wrong.”
This is not an appeal to natural law, and a rejection of the notion that abortion can be rendered proper by the legislative?
If there was dispute over the Archbishop’s opposition to abortion, it may be worthwhile examining the rest of his letter. The part excerpted is a point in the letter. It is a point under dispute. It is already been said the point is inconsistent with other parts of his letter. Examining other parts of the letter doesn’t change the disputed point from being sloppy or dare I say simply wrong.
Well, respectfully, it remains that Chaput was appealing to the natural law in stating that abortion must be opposed and that unborn children must be granted legal protections, beginning with an overturn of Roe, as that is what it will take given our legal framework – something he has long and loudly done, despite whatever implications one may read into a small selection. This letter, like all of his public statements on abortion, is clear and completely in line with Catholic thought since the very beginning, as he also frequently notes.
We are a federal system of government, and state legislatures draft legislation for the executive to approve. There are areas where the federal government has prerogative where perhaps the outlawing of abortion can be tied to civil rights or due process or some other area (I am not a lawyer).
Archbishop Chaput is recognizing the realities of the system of government we have.
Jonathan,
I figured it out. Catholics who want to stay loyal to the Democratic Party and truly want, at all costs, Obama to win the presidency, have already made up their mind. What is left for them to do is justify choosing to elect and publicly support a person whose priority it is to ensure that the killing of innocent children, born and unborn, is protected by law, to publicly fund these murders, and to spread propaganda around the globe to convince other nations that it isn’t wrong to kill children. It is hard for them. We have to take pity on them. It’s the only way they can sleep at night. Just reading through their comments and trying to parse through all of the spagetti logic should indicate that.
Joseph,
If you could take your head out of butt for a moment and actually read what is said, you would see that MM and I have said the statement on abortion was too weak, not that it was too strong. That would require you to actually read though.
John McCain opposes a war of annexation against Canada.
Doesn’t he deserve credit for that?
Of course not — and Biden should not be “credited” for not wanting to fund abortions.
You have a candidate who just yesterday said that if you don’t support embryo-destroying research then you don’t care about those with disabilities, and you’re picking nits over the bishop’s phrasing on democracy?
I wish you read the Archbishop half as generously as you read the Democratic Platform.
Uh huh, MZ Forrest. My head is in my butt, sorry, I can’t hear you justify your pro-abortion stance in here very well.
Just a reminder to all of the Catholics who are willfully voting for Obama-Biden and at the same time fully acknowledging what they intend to do regarding abortion and ESCR, they are technically towing the same line as Biden himself. That is, I believe what the Church says about abortion, but it doesn’t affect how I understand politics. It’s unbelievable that none of you can read between the lines of what the bishops have been saying.
Just like the decree of automatic excommunication for so-called womenpriests drew the predictable response of “so what? This doesn’t prove that Jesus didn’t really want women priests! It just proves that the Vatican is run by a bunch of stuffy, old, curmudgeon, male chauvinist pigs”, these Catholics stick up their nose to Church teaching, even at the cost of communion.
Chaput is mistaken if he thinks returning abortion to the states would fix the problem. It would in some states and not in others. No, Roe must be overturned on the principle that the natural law umbrella protects human existence over human privacy.
Either way, his “leave it up to the states” approach undermines authentic Catholic teaching on killing innocent life.
–
Mikey I., Is this just a misuse of the word undermines? I don’t follow your thinking.
The phrase “concern troll” comes to mind.
Do you really think there is a single person who thinks that what Abp. Chaput is saying is that if the permissive abortion regime came from state legislatures rather than the Supreme Court, it would be fine? And if they did, I’m quite sure it would he could take care of himself and correct it.
Zach you said: With all respect, a Catholic of good conscience can support Obama, if they believe he will best promote the common good.
I do not believe that is true. One can support Obama IF there is not another candidate running who is as supportive of intrinsic evil as Obama. McCain is a jerk, but he is much more pro-life than Obama. If there were another candidate, ie Guiliani who is essentially equally anti-life to Obama, then one could choose to vote for the one who is better on the other issues.
No one deserves credit for opposing the annexation of Canada. We need to secure their vital moose population!
JohnMcG,
Given the writings of JPII on democracy – one of them cited above – and Pope Benedict’s pontificating on a cultural of relativism, these would seem to be important points. I’m sorry if you and others consider the philosophical undergirdings to be trivial.
Ann: you are misapplying the principle here. You logic would only work if voting for each person implicated the voter in formal cooperation with evil. But as long as you do not support the policy in question, this is not the case– and the bishops are explicitly clear about that. In such a case, therefore, you need to take a further step and look at the likely consequences of your vote, both in terms of the actual outcome of each candidate’s policy on this particular issue, plus other issues pertaining to morality and the natural law.
In such circumstances one can make this case that (i) Obama’s purported support for ulimited abortion will have little practical consequence, and anyway, any direct negative effect would be outweighed by potential indirect positive effects arising from the attendant social, economic, and health care policies he is committed to while McCain is not; (ii) McCain is dramatically worse on other key issues such as likelihood to start a war, continue the CIA’s torture techniques, refuse to tackle global warming, ignore the health care crisis etc.
Now, you may disagree with (i) and (ii) and that is your right– but remember we are arguing at the level of prudence and probability here. Another way of putting it is that you cannot make a decision simply based on “McCain says he opposes abortion” and “Obama says he supports abortion”. You need to dig further.
You are responding to a threat that isn’t there. Please, try to find one person who actually believes that Archbishop Chaput is saying what you claim to be so concerned about him saying.
In the context of a campain in which just yesterday, the one Catholic canididate among the four on the major party tickets was saying that if you don’t support embryo-destructive research then you dont care about the disabled and their families, yes, this is a trivial concern.
And you know it’s trivial concern, too.
Mikey I., Is this just a misuse of the word undermines? I don’t follow your thinking.
I don’t think I am misusing the word. I am agreeing with MM and M.Z. that for Chaput to imply that the Republican desire to put the “debate” back in the hands of the states is irrelevant if abortion is intrinsically evil. For him to say that the “debate” “belongs there” implies that there is a “debate” to be “worked out.” I agree with M.Z.: Chaput’s statement here is too weak, as it simply mimics the weak Republican platform. Or, rather, it is strong in the wrong way.
Do you really want me pulling links from the libertarians at Inside Catholic claiming that abortion (and gay marriage) should be decided by the states? The fact that two pontiffs have addressed the error should give you some idea about how widespread it is.
If the matter was RETURNED to the States, the pressure would be on locally accountable legislators to do the will of the greater number of people. Many, many legislatures would RETURN it to “health of the mother” only.
Then efforts could be made to educate those states that allowed it for any reason. Efforts could be concentrated.
What Chaput was speaking of is the historical American way.
It doesn’t mean he thinks those state legislatures not deciding in favor of the right to life would be correct.
Really, this is a bogus issue being raised by this thread.
Do you really think there is a single person who thinks that what Abp. Chaput is saying is that if the permissive abortion regime came from state legislatures rather than the Supreme Court, it would be fine?
I don’t know a single person who thinks that. I know many (myself included) who think Chaput carefully chooses and adjusts his words so the implied conclusion is “Vote Republican”
I know many (myself included) who think Chaput carefully chooses and adjusts his words so the implied conclusion is “Vote Republican”
That’s certainly what it seems like sometimes.
Ann,
I’m very open to that kind of reasoning but after reflection I came to the conclusion that you quoted from me. The reasoning for the conclusion follows that initial sentence – if you think I’m wrong, could you let me know how by critiquing the reasons I supplied that support that conclusion? Thanks!
Michael I. ,
When you write, “I am agreeing with MM and M.Z. that for Chaput to imply that the Republican desire to put the “debate” back in the hands of the states is irrelevant if abortion is intrinsically evil.”
I want to understand where you are coming from – how is having the opportunity to change the abortion law irrelevant to the pro-life cause? For that is what overturning Roe v. Wade would do – we would have the opportunity to change the law. Right now, that is impossible. And I’m still wondering how what he said “undermines” the teaching of the Catholic Church? Thanks
Chaput is vocal in expressing the Church’s disallowing of the “personally opposed, but…” that is so common in both parties, but mostly in the Democratic Party. It’s perfectly fine for an elected official to feel that way so long as they don’t deceive voters, but it is not right for them to claim Catholicism at the same time.
If this is an “implied conclusion” to vote Republican, then that is nonsensical. If there are other issues that draw you to that conclusion, then what are they? Heck, in Public Servants and Moral Reasoning Chaput called Biden “a man of distinguished public service.” Hardly sounds like a GOP homer to me.
I never thought I would see the day that Vox Nova contributors would utterly throw an archbishop under the bus. The post itself with some of the comments, especially by Iafrate, that imply that Chaput is narrowly pro-life or sacrificing Catholicism for Republicanism are despicable.
MM,
First, I’m not intending to rush to the side of McCain, but he hasn’t said that his priorities as president are to start a war, refuse to tackle (like a football player) global warming, ignore the health care crisis, etc. Neither has Obama. Both of those guys have basically promised, as best they can, to please everyone and to be as happily humanitarian as anyone can expect a benevolent ruler to be.
Where they have made a clear distinction without equivocation is on the abortion problem. McCain has made it clear that his intention is to do whatever he can to overturn Roe. He has made his opposition to abortion clear. He has also made it clear that he believes human life begins at conception and that, from the moment of conception, human life needs to be protected by law.
On the other hand, Obama has made it clear that his intention is to protect Roe from being overturned at all costs, to enshrine Roe, to publicly fund abortion, to use federal funds to spread pro-abortion propaganda and fund abortion pressure groups worldwide, and he has also made it clear that paying attention to science on the issue of when human life begins is above his pay scale.
On the other issues, you can take them or leave them. Neither candidates has put as much energy or sworn to “tackle” an issue like they have the abortion problem. You can’t prove they either of them are going to do anything else they have said. But they’ve bet their entire campaign that they’ll do exactly what they say on abortion. Do you know for sure that McCain is going to start a war or ignore the health care crisis? Do you for sure that Obama isn’t? But you sure as hell know where each of them stand on abortion.
Michael Denton… never? C’mon!
Joseph,
Are you really saying it is the official position of the Catholic Church that Catholics may not vote for Obama? May we find this teaching if we read carefully between the lines of the official Church pronouncements? Has it been written between the lines, rather than stated explicitly, so as to protect the Church’s tax exempt status?
I would be interested to see if anyone believes that Abp. Chaput values democracy over justice in general and protection of the unbron in particular. As you mentioned yourself, his opposition to abortion is not in dispute. Seeing the relative weight the archbishop puts on justice for the unborn versus democracy, I think the conclusion that he is advocating some fetishization of democracy that the Holy Fathers have warned against is absurd, to the point where “concern” that some will draw this conclusion is manufactured to change the subject.
—
To return to one of the other points, I do think anti-abortion Catholics have erred in the past by stressing the scale of abortion as a reason why it should be primary among other issues. I think the Bush Administration’s introduction of torture and initiation of war are graver concerns than continuing the current abortion regime, since they establish new assaults on the dignity of human life.
One of the consequences has been the notion in this election cycle that policies aimed at reducing the number of abortions is an adequate response to the problem of abortion, and indeed a superior response than legal restrictions. It’s not.
I don’t know a single person who thinks that. I know many (myself included) who think Chaput carefully chooses and adjusts his words so the implied conclusion is “Vote Republican
My understanding is that Archbishop Chaput’s formal political involvement was limited to working for the RFK and Carter campaigns.
I want to understand where you are coming from – how is having the opportunity to change the abortion law irrelevant to the pro-life cause? For that is what overturning Roe v. Wade would do – we would have the opportunity to change the law.
I think the quote and this issue of “where the debate belongs” reveals the limits of democratic ideals. Simply “having the opportunity to change the law” is not enough because it is an absolutely unjust law.
MM said it perfectly: “Let’s think this through a little. Assume Roe is no more. A very likely scenario would be for the largest states accounting for the great majority of abortions to immediately introduce legislation codifying the provisions of Roe, and this would garner the support of a majority of the electorate. By the logic of Chaput, that would be fine, as it’s a case of the American people deciding “through fair debate and legislation”. But of course this is not so as such laws would be as grievously wrong as Roe.”
Right now, that is impossible. And I’m still wondering how what he said “undermines” the teaching of the Catholic Church?
Because killing innocent persons is absolutely wrong in Catholic teaching. There is nothing to “debate” within the idealized “american process.” To imply that a “debate” needs to occur through the “process” at the state level undermines the absolute unacceptability of abortion. I realize that you, Zach, and others are coming at the question from the position of political realism: here is the system we have, so we have to work within it, etc. I don’t have that approach. The system we have — and Chaput’s language shows this — allows for “democratic debate by the people” about the rightness or wrongness of the killing of human beings. Chaput’s language puts a republican straightjacket on the issue which undermines the Church’s prophetic position. I don’t think Chaput believes that Roe is “debatable” at the state level, or at any level, but this is what he implies through his sloppy wording. The sad thing is, it must be difficult for him to avoid the sloppiness if he can’t seem to break himself out of american political categories.
Wow… this is kind of weird. MM, M.Z., and myself being criticized because we insist that Chaput’s language is awfully soft on abortion!
He [McCain] has also made it clear that he believes human life begins at conception and that, from the moment of conception, human life needs to be protected by law.
Human life needs to be protected by law, except in the case of stem-cell research. Obama is agnostic on the question of when personhood begins, but John McCain knows, and yet he supports stem-cell research.
By the way, what about all the methods of birth control that the Church teaches are abortifacient? Are Catholics obliged to outlaw the IUD, the birth-control pill, and the morning-after pill? Why is this never mentioned as part of the pro-life agenda? If human life begins at conception, the devices and drugs that prevent implantation are abortions according to the Church.
Is this issue never raised for fear it would be too unpopular?
My wife has read Archbishop Chaput’s newest book, and thought it was wonderful. From her synopsis, I would say anybody implying that Archbishop Chaput is narrowly focused, a republican, or is watching abortion to the exclusion of other issues is being uncharitable to the Archbishop. Not something to be done lightly.
To paraphrase Chesterson, we do not need a Church that is right where we are right, we need a Church that is right where we are wrong.
Michael,
Some remarks on your comments:
I think the quote and this issue of “where the debate belongs” reveals the limits of democratic ideals. Simply “having the opportunity to change the law” is not enough because it is an absolutely unjust law.
Yes – it is an absolutely unjust law, and we want to change it. How do we change it? In a democracy, we change it by democratic rule. It’s not perfect, but what human thing is? What should we replace democracy with, and how? Should we appoint a Catholic King to legislate Catholic morality on a nation of 300 million? These are the questions you need to ask and answer if you reject the democratic system of government. And fair enough if you do.
By the logic of Chaput, that would be fine, as it’s a case of the American people deciding “through fair debate and legislation”.
This is not Chaput’s logic – he is clearly not saying that simple democratic approval of a law makes it just. I think MM is reading this into his words.
Because killing innocent persons is absolutely wrong in Catholic teaching. There is nothing to “debate” within the idealized “american process.”
He’s not calling into question whether killing innocent people is wrong; he’s talking about how the law gets changed in a democratic republic. I agree with you his wording was a bit sloppy, but to accuse him of putting democracy above the natural law is absurd!
Archbishop Chaput understands the American Federal system better than some of the posters here.
David Nickol,
There is such a thing as political prudence – good changes have to be made in good ways. This involves determining what is possible. We cannot simply insist on the ideal and settle for nothing less.
An example might help. Say there was a law that in effect killed 6 people a year. It is obviously an evil law. If we could change the law to make it kill 3 innocent people a year, but not get rid of the law entirely so that no one would die, what is the right choice? I think if those are the only two choices, than the right choice is to change the law to lessen the number of innocent people killed. Many political choices are like this – our possibilities are often limited by the nature of things.
These are the questions you need to ask and answer if you reject the democratic system of government. And fair enough if you do.
There is no “single” democratic system of government. Of course I am in favor of democratic principles. I am simply pointing to their limits, especially when they are connected to the american ethos, i.e. the culture of death.
I agree with you his wording was a bit sloppy, but to accuse him of putting democracy above the natural law is absurd!
Again, what I said above was: “I don’t think Chaput believes that Roe is “debatable” at the state level, or at any level, but this is what he implies through his sloppy wording.
The statement in Archbishop Chaput’s letter that MM criticizes reads as follows:
“Roe is bad law. As long as it stands, it prevents returning the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, so that the American people can decide its future through fair debate and legislation.”
According to MM, the logic of this statement is that Chaput should be fine with abortion remaining legal, so long as it was left to the states to decide the matter themselves. But this is just false. Saying that Roe is bad because it takes the decision about whether to criminalize abortion away from the states does not entail thinking that legal abortion would be fine so long as it was what a state decided to do. I think, for example, that laws regarding rape and murder ought to be decided at the state level. That hardly means I would be fine with a state that legalized rape and/or murder.
David,
You kind of sound like the womenpriests I tagged to the end of one of my comments. You are waiting for the Pope exclaim that Catholics cannot vote for Obama. You know that will not happen. It is not enough for you to hear constantly from heirarchy that Catholics cannot vote for or promote abortion and believe that they are still in communion. It is simple. You have two candidates, two choices. One says (and I hate to repeat myself over and over again), in summary, that he is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever and that you can count on him to secure legal abortions in this country (and others) and that he flippantly believes that the point in which life begins is above his pay grade (so, apparently, he isn’t paid enough to read a science book), the other says that he is completely opposed to abortion and believes that the law should protect the unborn from the point of conception, that they are humans. If a Catholic votes for the former, knowing where he stands, what he believes, and what he plans to do, then they are voting for and promoting the cause of abortion.
Michael,
Since I am also a fan of democratic principles, I guess I think having an opportunity to use them with respect to the abortion issue is an improvement over not. I think it’s enough for now.
I didn’t mean to imply there is a single system of democratic government, as that’s clearly not the case. But there are principles that are common in every democracy – one person, one vote. The people make the laws. Majority rules. Etc. This is what I was talking about.
And you’re right to correct me with this comment: “Again, what I said above was: “I don’t think Chaput believes that Roe is “debatable” at the state level, or at any level, but this is what he implies through his sloppy wording.”
I confused what you said with what MM or MZ said. I think if the Archbishop were alerted to this mishap he would agree with you – he should have been a bit more clear.
“Archbishop Chaput understands the American federal system better than some of the posters here”.
Remember, democracy (which includes the “American federal system”) is a means to an and, and that its moral value depends on its conformity to the natural law. The problem with Roe is not that it usurps a state power, but that it declares something to be a right which is directly opposed to the moral law. To restrict the debate to the former positivist terms is to enter an intellectual cul-de-sac.
David,
One step at a time. The sale of abortifacients would have to inevitably be affected if the Constitution were interpreted so that life, from the moment of conception, would be protected. But that is a residual.
As for McCain’s erroneous views on ESCR (one which he has since changed), I don’t think I’m suggesting that you base your vote on who is more or less of a sinner. Not at all. McCain proposes to do everything in his power to give legal protection to the unborn, Obama proposes to do everything in his power to ensure that doesn’t happen and to promote it further, even internationally. It is their proposals that are important. I’m not terribly distracted by their sin. Anyway, one who believes that life begins at conception is much more likely to repent of support for ESCR than one who flippantly dodges the question because he doesn’t believe that life begins at conception.
MM gives us very typical lefty analysis. First, he places himself as judge of an Archbishop who has written in line with the Church’s teaching. This is always poor footing for a committed Catholic. Second, he seeks to sideline abortion as a voting issue so he can be free to push his candidate.
None,
I agree.
MM:
Remember, democracy (which includes the “American federal system”) is a means to an and, and that its moral value depends on its conformity to the natural law. The problem with Roe is not that it usurps a state power, but that it declares something to be a right which is directly opposed to the moral law. To restrict the debate to the former positivist terms is to enter an intellectual cul-de-sac.
No, the problem with Roe is that it does both. Your talk about ‘positivism’ when a determination of the natural law (that is not contrary to it) shares in its bindingness and is therefore not to be taken lightly shows how little you understand about the rule of law.
Fr. J,
Can you drop the tribalism and actually engage the text? This piece is not even about who one can vote for.
determination of the natural law — the form of government, broadly speaking, and the delimiting of powers
MZ,
C’mon, dude. Seriously.
MM,
The other day Obama said he will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon and that the military option is on the table. Sounds very similar to McCain. Given his support for abortion and, potentially, war, I guess you can’t support him either. If our intelligence is bad on Iran, Obama may lead us into another Iraq.
Regular readers know this has been discussed before, but first time readers of this post should know that the arguments of MM and Zach that one can vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights for “proportional reasons” ignore that the bishops Faithful Citizenship statement clarifies that “proportional” is not good enough. They must be for “morally grave” reasons.
“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.”
Zach and MM,
You guys are rationalizing your way into voting for a person that promotes the pure evil of abortion. Instead of looking for loopholes, try some common sense. But what do I know, I’m just a knuckle dragger from Nebraska.
And the threadjacking is complete. Philosophcial discussions in America can’t be had because the political must come first. In fact the political informs the philosophical in the American mind.
Regular readers know this has been discussed before, but first time readers of this post should know that the arguments of MM and Zach that one can vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights for “proportional reasons” ignore that the bishops Faithful Citizenship statement clarifies that “proportional” is not good enough. They must be for “morally grave” reasons.
The problem, of course, is that many VN readers don’t seem to think that any morally grave reasons exist. The Church seems to disagree, as it uses the language “morally grave” for a number of issues.
“A Catholic organization may not directly or indirectly make any statement, in any medium, to endorse, support, or oppose any candidate for public office, political party, or PAC” — USCCB, 2007.
I nowhere suggested Abp. Chaput violated this provision. I did not imply in any way that his comments were partisan. As for Fr. J on the other hand, I believe he is publicly supporting a particular candidate in a way that seems inappropriate for his status.
Knuckle Dragger,
I do not support Obama, and I do not think voting for him is reasonable. What I said was that I do not think voting for him is immoral. The distinction is important.
MZ,
Threadjacking? The force of the post wasn’t philosophical, it was entirely political (with a philosophical candy coating). I guess you don’t take your own suggestion of reading the thread. Abortion is a political issue? Blind as a bat.
MM,
Opposition to Obama isn’t the same thing as supporting another candidate.
ctd,
I thought it was obvious that in order for something to be proportional to the abortion regime it would have to be at least equally as grave and equally as evil. I am not trying to ignore the bishops and I thought what I said was consistent with that teaching.
Michael,
“The problem, of course, is that many VN readers don’t seem to think that any morally grave reasons exist. The Church seems to disagree, as it uses the language “morally grave” for a number of issues.”
Many VN readers don’t think any proportionate reasons exist. I think most VN readers know that abortion is not the only grave evil that must be considered in political life. I hope, anyway. Maybe I’m naive.
Many VN readers don’t think any proportionate reasons exist. I think most VN readers know that abortion is not the only grave evil that must be considered in political life. I hope, anyway. Maybe I’m naive.
Well, you are probably right. I was replying to ctd’s use of the terms of “proportionate” and “morally grave,” which, as you have pointed out, he or she seems to have misunderstood.
There are existing laws against murder in the United States. The Supreme Court has failed to ensure that these laws apply to all human beings.
I will stand by my statement about Chaput. I find him to be a man more interested in being a GOP ward heeler than a pastor of souls.
Nate W – it’s not so clear to everyone that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being. That is part of what we need to change. Further, the Supreme Court is the branch of government that adjudicates the laws – it does not charged with ensuring the laws are executed (that’s the Presidency).
In response to David Nickol wrt pressure on Catholic SCOTUS Justices to overturn Roe -
Roberts and Alito, we don’t know yet, so some pressure is warranted. Thomas and Scalia are already on board. Kennedy would seem to be the one to warrant the most pressure, being the author of that horrible Casey opinion.
I do have to agree that the “leave it up to the states” does undercut the argument that the right to life is an inalienable right. It is not a matter of legislative policy preference to be decided by voters (or legislators) from state to state, but one of biological fact. All it does is move the decision from the SCOTUS to the state legislatures, when the point is that it is not up to either of them to “decide”. Nature and Nature’s God has already decided.
Scalia and Thomas have, in fact, voted to overturn Roe. Unfortunately, their votes were in the minority.
It is not enough for you to hear constantly from heirarchy that Catholics cannot vote for or promote abortion and believe that they are still in communion.
Joseph,
But that is not exactly what the Church has said. The Church’s position is that you may not vote for a pro-choice candidate because he or she is pro-choice, but you may vote for a pro-choice candidate in spite of the fact that he or she is pro-choice, provided you have “proportionate reasons.” It all boils down to what “proportionate reasons” are, and as has been discussed here on Vox Nova, this is a very technical matter, and many of the pro-choice Republicans are giving a very distorted version of what it all means in order to coerce votes for McCain.
Things would indeed be very simple if the Church had said Catholics cannot vote for a pro-choice candidate, but that has not been said.
c matt is correct. And the question has not arisen before the Court during the tenure of Roberts or Alito. I hope it does arise soon, but only after a potential 5th vote is secured. Be assured that Obama will not nominate such a potential vote.
If the question comes before the Court again and Roe is affirmed, the doctrine of stare decisis will render it sgnificantly more difficult for it ever to be reversed.
As it stands now, I do everything reasonably within my power to reduce the number of abortions, including supporting many groups that counsel and support pregnant women and girls. I am powerless, however, to support legislation that would significantly limit or outlaw abortion. The Supreme Court (via Roe and its progeny) has lawlessly taken that opportunity away from me. Legislatures, mindful of the democratic process, determine what acts are legal and illegal, subject only to constitutional constraints. In Roe, the Court contrived such a constraint (citing fabricated penumberas), thereby arrogating to it what everyone knows should be a legislative power.
Forgive me for sticking my oar in at this late stage in the debate, but can I suggest the following:
-That the question of abortion be removed from the sphere of party platforms, and placed instead in the realm of nationwide referenda, thus detaching suc a question from any party label, and from any purely contingent associations with any unrelated issues.
-That all opponenets of abortion agree that the priority is tackling and destroying the socio-economic situations that give rise to abortion possibilities in the first place.
Anonymous:
Your first suggestion is Constitutionally feckless.
Your second is feckless for the simple reason that abortions are not simply the result of abstract socio-economic situations. If that were the case, the abortion rate would have been at least as high prior to Roe. And that is not remotely the case.
Your second is feckless for the simple reason that abortions are not simply the result of abstract socio-economic situations.
Poverty is hardly “abstract.”
And the question has not arisen before the Court during the tenure of Roberts or Alito.
This is a request for information, not a rhetorical question, although I think I know the answer.
Is it the case that the question has not arisen, or is it the case that the Court has decided not to take any cases in which the question would arise? As I understand the process, the Court decides what it will and won’t hear. So has no one tried to bring the issue before the Court, or has it been attempted, and the Court has not taken the case.
Anonymous:
Are “it isn’t convenient” or “I don’t want to adjust to it” or “I have other priorities” or “it’s a girl” or “it’s making me upset and that will damage my health” some of the socio-economic excuses, er, situations you have in mind?
Michael,
Poverty in America was worse by all measures throughout the pre-Roe era than today, but the abortion rate in the pre-Roe era were a tiny fraction of that of the pro-Roe era.
David,
I am not aware of any cert petition involving a the constitutionality of a law that would implicate Roe in a manner that would invite its revisitation since the appointment of Roberts (Alito came after). And I hope not to see one prematurely for the reasons explained above.
There is a bit of chess match going on, I think. Any law that a state legislature adopts that pushes the envelope on Roe is invariably challenged by the pro-aborts. Such a challenge must wind its way through the federal district court and then the circuit court of appeals before a petition can be submitted to the Supreme Court. Both sides are cautious about appeals for different reasons — each must weigh adverse lower court precedent against the risk of adverse higher court precedent. I would think pro-life groups would be very reluctant to ask the Supreme Court to review a pro-abort court of appeals decision given the current composition of the Supreme Court. They would feel much differently with one more Roberts/Alito type appointment.
Wow, I just looked at theses comments. It does not cease to amaze me how quickly some attribute motive to MM despite that rather balanced and thoughtful manner in which he evaluated Archbishop Chaput’s statement.
My own thoughts, which I offer here briefly:
A reality-based approach to Roe would reveal that making abortion a state issue would codify legalized abortion in many parts of the country. Overturning Roe would do just that. Federal protection of the unborn, I think, is what we really want. Overturning Roe in conjunction with a federal law or Constitutional Amendment is what I think is our only real hope in ending legalized abortion. This seems platitudinous to me.
Many VN readers don’t think any proportionate reasons exist. I think most VN readers know that abortion is not the only grave evil that must be considered in political life. I hope, anyway. Maybe I’m naive.
Then these readers are wrong. Euthanasia, unjust war, and embryonic stem cell research are qualitatively proportionate to abortion. Otherwise, Ratzinger’s clause on proportionality is meaningless.
Then these readers are wrong. Euthanasia, unjust war, and embryonic stem cell research are qualitatively proportionate to abortion. Otherwise, Ratzinger’s clause on proportionality is meaningless.
Yes.
Hmmm. let’s first look at what Chaput says:
CHAPUT: “Roe is bad law.”
And so it is. Primarily, and most importantly because the Magisterium has said that such a law is gravely unjust. Secondarily, because the law did not arrive as a result of discussion and debate leading to the explicit passing of a law, but through the arbitrary judicial conglomeration of abortion with a privacy right, as decided by a very small number of people. Both the law itself and the means by which the law came into being are bad. Both.
CHAPUT: “As long as it stands, it prevents returning the abortion issue to the states where it belongs, so that the American people can decide its future through fair debate and legislation.”
That explicitly addresses the secondary reason for the law being bad, and proposes a solution that will remedy the lack of meaningful debate. That will remedy one reason for Roe being bad law. But nothing here opposes the primary reason that Roe is bad law. Any observant person reading what Chaput writes will also not fail to see a preceding paragraph, where Chaput indicates the primary reason why Roe is bad law: “It always involves the intentional killing of an innocent life, and it is always, grievously wrong.”
Having disposed of that, turn to MM’s other claims.
MM: “With this statement, Chaput is undercutting the basis of his own argument, and indeed, mixing moral absolutes with prudential judgments concerning political strategies.”
That no amount of debate will overturn the unjust ruling of Roe is not a prudential argument: it simply states the current state of affairs. If restrictions on abortion are to be introduced, Roe has to be overturned. If Roe is overturned, that returns the decision to the states. If the decision is returned to the states, then debate that can actually affect the law can happen. This is not a matter of prudence.
MM: “Let’s think this through a little. Assume Roe is no more. A very likely scenario would be for the largest states accounting for the great majority of abortions to immediately introduce legislation codifying the provisions of Roe, and this would garner the support of a majority of the electorate.”
Chaput understands that perfectly well. But at least there would be debate, and in some cases it would be successful. Only those who have glossed over Chaput’s argument would mistake his secondary point for his whole argument. (And as is customary for MM, he omits the other half of the reasoning that opposes his point here. If Roe is overturned, it is highly likely that some of the states will introduce legislation restricting access to abortion. We will have gone from a situation where there is essentially no restriction anywhere, to one where there are restrictions in some places. This is an objective improvement from what exists currently. MM fails to address this. MM has made other arguments before against overturning Roe. He has also warned of a unquantified backlash from overturning Roe, as though that were a legitimate reason to deliberately fail to overturn Roe. MM’s arguments regularly point to problems with overturning Roe, and only weakly does he ever mention that Roe is an intrinsically unjust law, thoroughly deserving of being overturned.)
Of course, there is much that can be done in addition to overturning Roe. Overturning Roe does not exclude other efforts.
MM: “…the Democratic platform includes for the first time language to reduce the number of abortions and to provide assistance to women to carry their child to term. Obama even noted this in his speech. Not only was McCain silent on abortion, but his party removed similar provisions from its platform.”
Here’s the relevant part of the Democratic platform: “The Democratic Party also strongly supports access to comprehensive affordable family
planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives. We also recognize that such health care and education help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and thereby also reduce the need for abortions.”
So, the Democratic platform, where it explicitly mentions abortions, actually proposes to reduce them by means of family planning programs and sex education. (And, yes, I have read the succeeding paragraph, which makes no claim for its effect on reducing abortions.)
And here is the Republican platform: “At its core, abortion is a fundamental assault on the sanctity of innocent human life. Women deserve better than abortion. Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life.”
And also: “…we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children.”
(And for the record I’m neither Republican nor Democrat, but certainly a Catholic trying to disperse the murk of partisan claims.)
Mike,
Thanks very much. That was very informative.
We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation
to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. [from the Republican Platform]
Is anybody working on these two? I believe this has been said in many previous Republican platforms.
M.M. you said: You logic would only work if voting for each person implicated the voter in formal cooperation with evil
I think you are assuming that it is permissable to engage in material, but not formal, cooperation.
It is not permissable to engage in material cooperation even though one does not join in the evil intent except under certain limited circumstances. A quote from “Man as Man-Ethics” byThomas Higgins, S.J. may help us to think things through. “The general law of morality is that man must avoid evil as far as he can and the specific law of charity bids him to prevent his neighbor (Obama) from doing wrong to the best of his ability. May a man therefore ever have a novoluntary part in another’s sin? Generally speaking, he may not, but at times the principle of double effect may be applied. Since the material cooperator does not intend the evil of the principal’s act, whenver his own act is good or indifferent and he has a proportionately grave reason for acting, his cooperation wil be licit.
Two things must always be considered. First, it must be determined whether the proposed coppperative act in intrincially wrong. In making a decision on this point, one must bear in mind that there are simply no circumstances in which the act could be good (Voting is not intrinsically evil) ……..The second point to be considered is whether the good one seeks by his cooperative act outweighs the evil he allows in his neighbor’s bad act. ….” Here are the reasons one may not materially cooperate in an intrinsically evil act (helping Obama to vote the most anti life vote in Congress and as President). I will skip some. The one concerning us is “Where an injustice would be done to an innocent third party, the sole excusing reason would be the threat of equal damage to the cooperator” In other words if not cooperating with Obama’s evil would result in our death we could materially cooperate. Only our death would be equal to the death of the unborn under Obama’s tenure thereby allowing us to vote for him.
I conclude that we cannot vote for Obama unless our own life is jeapordized. He is pro ESCR, gay marriage, abortion, infanticide. McCain is MUCH better on those issues. McCain’s position on torture is well known. He is against it. He is also against unjust war. Whether a war is unjust is difficult to determine. .
In other words, McCain is better on the intrinsic evils than Obama.
Although lying is intrinsically evil, too.
Policratius:
Chaput said it should go to the states.
You say it should be a constitutional amendment.
Constitutional amendments require ratification by the states (3/4ths I think).
So it has to go to the states (unless there’s a federal law, which I don’t think many people think would fly).
Ann, you were doing fine until the last part “I concluide that we cannot vote for Obama unless our own lifer is jeopardized”. At this final stage of PDE, one must look at the proportionate reasons. One must look at how Obama’s position on abortion will play out, and McCains too. We cannot equate rhetoric with reality. We must look at the implications. Under present circumstances, neither will have a serious impact on abortion. Some of Obama’s executive decisions could be traced to moire abortion ate the margin, but his other policies may reduce it indirectly. Likewise, given that abortion is diretcly related to economic factors, McCain’s plans might actually increase abortion, rhetoric notwithstanding.
These circumstances matter.
M.M., I have problems with the concept of proportionate reasons here. The proportionate reasons must be those of equal weight to abortion. In other words Obama and McCain must be essentially equally awful on an intrinsic evil. Then one can begin to compare them on other issues. Then one can vote for the candidate who will bring about greater goods. This just isn’t the case. Obama’s positions are way off the charts on most of the intrinsic evils. McCain’s are not. One cannot weigh against that against his position on sex education, tax policies, health care and come out on his side. We can only weigh those things when the candidates are essentially the same on the intrinsic evils.
Again, McCain is a jerk, a low level thinker and logically inconsistent a lot of the time. But he is best on the intrinsic evils.
Poli,
You are right – “Overturning Roe in conjunction with a federal law or Constitutional Amendment is what I think is our only real hope in ending legalized abortion. This seems platitudinous to me.”
We will eventually need a federal ban. The question is how and when these things should happen. We will never get to the point of being able to pass a federal ban if Roe is not first overturned. The first step in ending the abortion law is overturning Roe. There is no other choice.
Michael Joseph,
One more thing, I’m not a lawyer, so this only impairs my understanding of Abp. Chaput’s statement. From reading your posts and reading your previous blog Evangelical Catholicism, I think that you are a philosophy teacher? I may be wrong. My point is, that you aren’t a lawyer either. As far as his remarks go, instead of jumping to conclusions, I think it would be wise to wait and see if there will be a clarification that we both can understand. Like I said, given the Abp.’s hard stance against abortion, I doubt that what he meant was that whether or not abortion is the killing of innocent children is something that can and should be decided by a larger group of human beings. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. I think I’ll actually email this post and its thread to his chancery. I don’t expect it to get anywhere, but if it does it will at least illustrate the confusion his statement has created (through no fault of his own, but rather the interpretations of the readers, I’m sure).
I have problems with the concept of proportionate reasons here. The proportionate reasons must be those of equal weight to abortion.
ann,
This seems to me to be a statement from the “body count” school of proportionate reason. Unless you can somehow figure out how Obama would save 1.3 million lives a year to offset deaths by abortion, you do not have a proportionate reason for voting for him. I think some of the people on Vox Nova who have a deeper understanding of intrinsic evil, formal and material cooperation with evil, remote material cooperation with evil, and proportionate reasons have already debunked the “body count” approach.
The question I keep asking myself is, if the “body count” approach is correct, what, hypothetically might we have to vote for using that approach. Suppose it is McCain’s plan to reverse the results of the Civil War and split the United States into two countries by restoring the Confederate States of America. Or say he plans to repeal the First Amendment and make this a formally Episcopalian country. Or say he plans to start five or ten more wars on the scale of Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, all of those are extremely unlikely or preposterous, but it seems to me the “body count” approach would compel you to vote for McCain under all of those circumstances, since none of them sacrifice 1.3 million lives. (Of course, that is assuming McCain actually could bring the abortion rate to zero.)
To use the “body count” approach is to say the better candidate for president of the United States can be the absolute worst candidate in terms of assuring the future of the country, repairing the economy, dealing with health care, dealing with foreign affairs, and just about anything you can think of, as long as he is anti-abortion. That just doesn’t make sense to me. We vote for president because he will have the welfare of the whole country in his hands, and will also be the leader of the free world (to whatever extent that is possible after 8 years of George Bush). It seems to me to say that the only issue that matters is abortion is crazy.
David,
It might help if you didn’t deal in hypotheticals. No one is arguing that the absolute only consideration is a candidates policy on abortion. And if they are, they’re wrong to do so.
David and Zach,
I agree that abortion can’t be the only consideration, but Obama’s promotion of abortion tells us a lot about his moral compass.
Knuckle Dragger – agreed.
I will say it again. I do not engage in body count analysis. Obama is pro abortion to the max, he is pro infaticide and pro stem cell research. This is evil. McCain does not support those evils, with the possible exception of ESCR. McCain is not as bad a choice as Obama.
If we vote for Obama because we like his tax policies or war policies, it is just veneer to cover the fact we are voting for one who will impose those policies on the society where he can. The babies blood will be on our hands.
Ann – if you are serious about your ‘Infanticide’ charge you might take this to the logical conclusion and request that folks that engage in such thing are subject to murder trials -
which as you know in this country means the death penalty for murderers of children.
Be careful what you say.
If you feel the way you feel McCain is not your man – perhaps Palin is – but the way she puts her Finger in the wind she will be all taough talk and no action just like all Republicans.
Fact is a majority in every civilized western nation (funny particular the catholic ones like Spain/Italy/Mexico/Brazil/Germany) approve of some form of Abortion – certainly for
Rape/incest/medical reasons.
Abortions are here to stay -as said as this is.
Joseph, “JB,” “little gal,” “Feddie,” Ann, and all of you folks who relentlessly turn every single discussion regarding this election into a heated shouting match regarding abortion–a shouting match, I might add, that does absolutely NOTHING to stop abortions–I want to make an honest, charitable request of you. Please go here:
http://ktl.livejournal.com/360646.html?style=mine#cutid1
…and read this young man’s discussion of the “abortion issue.” Please understand, however, before you do, and before you start putting “comments” on his blog, that he’s as deeply committed a “Christian” as you’ll ever be able to find. As a matter of fact, his respect and consideration of his interlocutors puts EVERYBODY on this blog to shame, including me.
Just read it, and then maybe you won’t be so absolutely convinced that abortion is so cut-and-dry an issue for “Christians.”
As a matter of fact, I think it’s so important for you to be able to read it that I’m providing another way of getting to it:
http://ktl.livejournal.com/
digbydolben, I assume you are joking with this reference. Your guy says: “I am neither “pro-life”; nor “pro-choice”. I do not believe in a “woman’s right to choose”. I likewise do not believe in “an unborn child’s right to life.” I simply don’t believe in “rights”, period.
He then goes on to say that this is from Locke, this idea of rights. That is just not true.
Catholic teaching recognizes both rights and responsibilities as given by God and manifested in the natural law. Locke took the concept of natural law and perverted it somewhat, but he was not all wrong.
That blogger’s type of thinking just doesn’t belong in a world where the truth is easily found.
Ann, you may have noticed that there have been further comments at my friend’s blog, asserting that his concepts are based on “social contract” theory and that, as you’ve just asserted (I think), there are other ways of descrying “rights” than just by “social contract.”
And there, I think, lies the heart of the problem regarding this issue: the American polity, whether Christian fundamentalists wish to acknowledge it or not, is based on profoundly pagan 18th century Englightenment views of the “nature of man,” and of his “natural rights.” Those “natural rights” ARE, indeed Locke’s notions, and they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with traditional Catholic notions of “human rights” stemming from “relationship with God” and the ensuing “responsibilities.” The 18th Century (and the “intellectual giants”) among the Founding Fathers REJECTED such notions.
The quarrel of the anti-abortionists is, hence, with American political philosophy and the American legal tradition itself, and there is no possibility of returning to the kinds of monarchies and “integralist” societies that “protected human life” as part of their “divine mission”–at least not in America, the fruit not of Christian Civilisation, but of the secularist and anti-clerical Enlightenment.
Digby,
What can I say? I’m convinced. Thanks for linking me to an authority on the issue. Perhaps you can share this link with the Pope?
Digby,
You are mistaken about the founding fathers. Try this book by a
Catholic scholar from the University of Dallas. http://www.amazon.com/Vindicating-Founders-Justice-Origins-America/dp/0847685179
The Enlightenment thinkers did indeed twist the idea of natural law into something differerent from Catholic and Greek/Roman thinkers. But there are rights conferred by “Nature’s God”, remember.
Joseph, I didn’t mean to “convince” you, just to show you another point of view, written by a kid who really IS a “Christian.”
That boy gives half his income away to the poor and sleeps in homeless shelters in Phoenix, in order to help the unfortunates who have to go there.
I don’t think he’s “playing games” over his own responsibility to do what he can to prevent abortions.
Digby,
How much one gives away to the poor doesn’t increase that person’s spiritual, religious, or philosophical authority. Even if he gave his entire income away, yet at the same time proclaimed that he is confused on whether or not an unborn child is a human person, he’d still be wrong.
It is noble of him to give half of his income away to the poor, but that doesn’t make is opinions on life more worthy than the Church’s teaching or objective biology.
AND if he was baptized in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit by immersion or pouring of water, then you’re right, he is a Christian, like Biden, McCain, Palin, Bush, Pelosi, Abp. Chaput, etc. (I left out Obama because I have no knowledge of how his denomination celebrates Baptism).