Jay Anderson’s example
There has been no shortage of outcry from me against the pro-death policies of both Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain. I’ve discussed Obama’s support of legalized and accessible abortion, as well as McCain’s ambivalence toward the same issue. Yet there remain many Catholics who steadfastly proclaim McCain their man. An issue that has generally caused McCain supporters to either abscond from it or to downplay it is that of federal sanctioning and funding of embryonic stem cell research. While some Catholic bloggers have stretched credulity to the point of tearing in their efforts to extend benefit of doubt to McCain or to fictionalize some sort of misty character present in the man’s politics, Jay Anderson has shown that a Catholic who is a self-proclaimed conservative can still think clearly on this issue and can recognize that a vote for McCain involves cooperation in the evil of murder. And when it comes to funding the murder of humans in a scientific lab at a rate that will eventually dwarf that of the murder of humans in the womb, there is no such thing as a “lesser evil” in voting. While Catholics who support McCain will attempt to divert attention away from embryonic stem cell research (much like those who support Obama do so with respect to abortion), it’s important to remember that Catholic faith is supposed to trump political persuasion. A vote for McCain (or Obama) is a concession to the culture of death; it’s not placing a limit on evil.
Trackbacks
Comments are closed.
Poli:
It is permissible to vote so that a demonstrably worse candidate does not get into office to, for example, sign the Freedom of Choice Act 10 minutes after his inauguration and then push through a health care plan that would include tax-supported abortion.
I’m not interested in what Anderson says, but as for me, I am fine with voting to keep Obama out of office for this and many other reasons.
In short: Obama is in the pocket of PP and NARAL. For all his faults, McCain is not.
I’m not interested in what Anderson says, but as for me, I am fine with voting to keep Obama out of office for this and many other reasons.
That’s too bad. I’m not sure that using your vote negatively (i.e., to keep another candidate out) is all that praiseworthy.
In short: Obama is in the pocket of PP and NARAL. For all his faults, McCain is not.
Again, the bar must be set quite low. This attitude, I think, is why the GOP has come to realize that it need not take life issues too seriously…it seems to have many Catholics in the bag either way. What a far cry from the radicalness of early Christianity: when it was forced to comply with an evil state, it fought; today, when it is given its freedom in society, it concedes.
Teresa, you seem to miss Poli’s point.
“A vote for McCain (or Obama) is a concession to the culture of death; it’s not placing a limit on evil.”
Amen. That is exactly the conclusion I have arrived at. It seems to me that for Christians we have two options A) opting out of the political system altogether or B) working within the imperfect political system and work for change. But before one can work for change there HAS to be a recognition that there is a problem and for what I can see, many Republican pro-lifers are content with the pro-life beliefs of their guys without faulting them for where they lack.
Policraticus:
Let’s hypothesize that Obama and McCain are equally bad on ESCR. They aren’t equal on abortion. The most you could say, as your articles show, is that while Obama is dead-set for abortion, McCain is sometimes not whole-hearted. That makes them unequal on pro-life. Very unequal. Sure, one bad, and one horrible. But still unequal. If you want to persuade anyone intent on limiting evil not to vote for either, you have to show actual equality. You’re nowhere close.
radicalcatholicmom:
A) opting out of the political system strikes me as about the optimally worst thing to do;
B) working for change is the way to go; it’s going to hurt;
C) “many Republican pro-lifers are content with the pro-life beliefs of their guys without faulting them for where they lack”. Sure, and much is wrong on the other side, too. Where’s the inequality?
I agree with this post. Now, how shall we proceed? (Not with the election, but the bigger picture.)
from Evangelium Vitae In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.
On the issue of abortion, what McCain says seems to put him on the correct side. What he would or could actually do is another matter. But applying the principle in the above statement to embryonic stem-cell research, McCain is directly supporting something the Church considers to be evil. So McCain is not in an analogous position to the hypothetical legislator above who, in an attempt to limit evil as much as possible must nevertheless permit some. Consequently, for those who believe it is remote material cooperation to vote for a candidate who supports evil, in order to vote for McCain, they must convince themselves that it is acceptable to materially cooperate with a lesser evil than a greater evil. They are still guilty of remote material cooperation with evil.
It must also be noted that whereas many doubt that any president can do much about abortion, the next president will have a great say in what happens with embryonic stem-cell research. Bush limited stem-cell research by executive order and by his veto power. McCain will be able to rescind Bush’s executive order and could (probably would) sign any bill sent to him supporting stem-cell research.
So I think a good argument can be made that Catholics may not vote for either McCain or Obama, since McCain is directly supporting something the Church considers intrinsically evil (embryonic stem-cell research) and voting for McCain would be cooperating with that evil. McCain is not the lesser of two evils because he is basically forced (as the hypothetical legislator in Evangelium Vitae) to accept some evil in order to limit the overall evil. McCain is the lesser of two evils because he opposes one evil (abortion) but actively supports another evil (stem-cell research.)
So the principles articulated in the passage above don’t apply to McCain himself as a public official, although they might (or might not) indicate that it is permissible to vote for McCain as an evil, but the lesser evil.
I personally have many reservations about the “remote material cooperation” and “proportionate reasons” approach to voting, but it seems to me the above are issues for those who do find it convincing. Clearly from the pro-life view (or in any case, the non-Kmiec school) McCain would be preferable to Obama. But nevertheless, McCain directly supports intrinsic evil.
Should the future occur and ESCR develop as a useful therapy, the likelihood is that few embryos are destroyed just a few are kept and exploited as property and used for the development of the useful cells.
None of this speaks to any virtue of ESCR. Just trying to create the image of all that will be wrong with this scene. Now the use of humans as property and such may not truly resonate with any core values of conservative Catholics, the exploitative aspects of even a small number of humans deformed to be property in which cells are culled as slices from an ever-growing piece of bread should at least send chills among those on the left who worry about technology and economics and the potential to warp humanity.
Let’s hypothesize that Obama and McCain are equally bad on ESCR. They aren’t equal on abortion.
Why hypothesize? The hypothesis is proven. And whether or not they are “equal” on abortion is a thought that ensues only after a Catholic has compromised his/her principles on life. Why quantify death? There is no such thing as “more” or “less” pro-death. The affirmation of life or the affirmation of death is foremost a qualitative judgment.
“sign the Freedom of Choice Act 10 minutes after his inauguration and then push through a health care plan that would include tax-supported abortion.”
It is statements like the above that confirm my intention to vote for Obama. teresa, ipray for more coutnerproductive McCain supporters like yourself. God bless you!
Good for Jay. After taking a break from the blogosphere and just praying a lot about it and talking to friends who were going to vote for McCain or Obama, I have personally decided I cannot vote for Obama even after I had decided I would. I never wanted to vote for McCain anyway, just because he is so ambivalent in core issues. I just cannot imagine how I’m going to feel once Congress passes federal funding for ESCR and either McCain/Obama sign it into law. I’m going to feel like I need to go to confession.
A vote for McCain (or Obama) is a concession to the culture of death; it’s not placing a limit on evil.
Yes, this is the truth. Unlike Good ol’ Fr. Pavone’s take represented in the title of his voting guide: Voting with a Clear Conscience.
McCain has made advances on this issue in opposing human cloning and in the past opposed “fetal farming,” (making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes). But while he opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes, he presently supports funding for stem cells retrieved from already destroyed embryos.
Obama’s stance from what I understand is far more excessive.
But I don’t think there is any questioning on the part of Catholics voting for McCain that he supports the intrinsic evil of ESCR, apart from the hope that his ‘Catholic advisors’ (such as Sen. Brownback) and others (like his VP Sarah Palin, who opposes ESCR altogether) will continue to counsel him on this issue and not let up and taking some consolation in the qualifications he has made.
The Bishops have, collectively and individually, indicated the range of options Catholics may take when faced with two candidates who support intrinsic moral evils — most recently Joseph F. Naumann and Robert Finn of Kansas and Bishop Vasa of Oregon (the latter I think taking a far more radical stand than the rest).
Katerina, I’m curious what motivated you in your initial decision to vote for Obama and what made you change your mind?
Vasa’s stand is more “radical,” and in my judgment wrong. He’s interpreting Faithful Citizenship as he likes. If the “general sense” of the bishops’ thinking were what he says it was, then they would have written it in the document.
He is also absolutely wrong here:
Only when taken to a level of insanity could a ‘pro-war’ candidate be considered on par with a pro-abortion candidate in the Bishop’s view. “If we had a candidate in favor of a war in Iraq in which we decimate the entire population and we kill as many civilians to impose as much terror on everybody as possible to make sure . . . If that was in opposition to a pro-abortion person then I’d have a real conflict of conscience because you’d have a direct and intentional killing of innocent persons on one hand and the direct and intentional killing of persons on the other hand, said the Baker Bishop.
I’m not sure why “killing as many people as possible” is the characteristic that would make war “insanely” evil. Killing one person in an unjust war is intrinsically evil. Starting a war based on absolute lies is insane. This bishop is a muddled thinker.
Michael Iafrate,
We’re agreed that Vasa goes beyond the bounds of Faithful Citizenship. While I deeply question their “proportionate reasons” for doing so, I wouldn’t dispute that Catholics may not conscientiously vote for Obama.
What exactly is policraticus’s point? We live in an imperfect world?
Let me throw one other curveball at you. Life often continues after a fetus leaves the womb. In evaluating which candidate is most “pro-life” one must consider his/her position vis a vis the death penalty (both support, I believe,) healthcare (Obama is committed to improving access to healthcare,) and war. McCain has joked about killing Iranians (either by bombing or by cigarettes;) whereas, Obama seems much more reverent of the choices involving killing innocent women and children. Even beyond attitude, I think McCain would involve us in more wars and more civilian deaths than Obama.
Regarding embryonic stem cells, I thought the theological justification for the anti-abortion stance of the Catholic church rested on the verse “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you.” Is it too detailed to point out that these cells have never been in a womb?
Regarding abortion and the “pro-life” position, even if one is certain that a foetus has a soul etc. is it not also obvious that a woman has some rights in the situation considering her unique position as proprietor of the womb? In other words, we can agree that there is a mitigation in this situation. On the other hand, in the case of a war of choice in which innocent civilians are killed, there is no mitigation regarding the responsibility of, for example, George W. Bush for the deaths of around one million Iraqis.
I guess my point is, considering the need to compromise, as pointed out by policraticus, and select the lesser of two evils. Let’s consider all the evils, not just the ones affecting zygotes, embryos, and foetuses.
One problem that I think I identified as a result of another discussion I was having is that many Catholics think that a “proportionate reason” would have to be one specific issue that can “stand up to” abortion as a single issue. Some of these bishops seem to think in this issue-vs-issue way which seems to me a very un-Catholic way of thinking. Many of us who are opposed to McCain do so not in reference to any one issue (even war, for example), but a whole matrix of issues, principles, and overall worldview.
I thought the theological justification for the anti-abortion stance of the Catholic church rested on the verse
wrong.
even if one is certain that a foetus has a soul etc
No one is certain, and time of ensoulment is irrelevant to our human status. ‘But your Honor, he didn’t have a soul’ is not a defense.
…he presently supports funding for stem cells retrieved from already destroyed embryos.
Don’t you mean ‘already created but not yet destroyed embryos’, that is, IVF ‘leftovers’?
Poli: I completely agree with this post. (Go figure :-/)
Nice post. It always puzzles me that Catholics are given a green light to support McCain (or a flashing orange), and a red one for Obama when both suppotr intrinsically evil acts. If you think that support for an intrnsicallly evil act that goes direct to the culture of life means automatic disqualification, then you simply cannot choose any other candidate. But, you will say, it comes down to who does the least harm. Indeed it does. But remember what that means: it means that you cannot a priori rule out somebody who supports such an intrinsically evil acts. You can look to outcomes and consequences (which is a loose way of saying that we are talking remote material cooperation, not formal cooperation). And when you get into this, you have to realize that Obama’s policies are unlikely to have a much greater effect on either abortion or ESCR than McCain’s.
Policraticus: “…whether or not they are ‘equal’ on abortion is a thought that ensues only after a Catholic has compromised his/her principles on life.”
It’s plain that there are writings from Bishops who do explicitly bring up precisely the need for such thoughts. Are you really saying that these Bishops have compromised their principles on life?
“Why quantify death? There is no such thing as ‘more’ or
‘less’ pro-death. The affirmation of life or the affirmation of death is foremost a qualitative judgment.”
But numbers come into it as well. If I am forced into a choice of trying to save X number of lives, or alternatively X+1000 lives, I can assure you that the numbers make a difference. In fact, in the absence of any other circumstances, they would make a determinative difference. Because of the way voting works, I am in fact given only a very limited number of choices, and numbers unavoidably come into consideration.
But numbers come into it as well. If I am forced into a choice of trying to save X number of lives, or alternatively X+1000 lives, I can assure you that the numbers make a difference.
X…X+1000…it is not a matter of “saving lives” as one could save X lives in burning building A vs. save X+10 lives on a sinking ship. Such quantitative moves utterly fail to consider what is at stake: the qualitative value of life and policies that support the direct, unyielding killing of life. The numbers are meaningless and imprecise without considering quality of life and the assault on life.
Paul,
Of course there is a degree of compromise. The writing to which you refer does not seem to consider equivalence among two candidates on the precise issue of federal funding for the destruction of human lives in laboratories, but rather seems to take its point of departure from abortion.
I think that a lot of times voting comes down to a gut feel about a candidate. Each person has to decide that for himself. My gut feel is that, based on his actions, Obama does not believe that all human life is sacred. I think McCain does believe it, although I acknowledge he is not perfect. Until the pope runs for president, I have to compromise between imperfect choices. I have to support McCain for this simple reason.
But I’m a simple guy.
But numbers come into it as well. If I am forced into a choice of trying to save X number of lives, or alternatively X+1000 lives, I can assure you that the numbers make a difference.
Response:
Not necessarily. Suppose a woman has a choice of either saving her two kids or 200 unknown people. She is not blameworthy if she chooses her kids.
APOLONIO: “Suppose a woman has a choice of either saving her two kids or 200 unknown people. She is not blameworthy if she chooses her kids.”
As I did say: “…in the absence of any other circumstances [numbers] would make a determinative difference”. Circumstances like you suggest seem very unlikely in the case of deciding between candidates on their abortion policy.
POLICRATICUS: “The numbers are meaningless and imprecise without considering quality of life and the assault on life.”
Each individual abortion is just as much a denial of any quality of life, and each abortion is a fatal assault on life. Given that, numbers are then the way to compare different abortion policies.
It is the order of obligation and not the magnitude in that case Apolonio.
Philosophically, a government is insustainable that ignores the human rights of its vulnerable. The political question is how does one move a government from a position that does ignore the most vulnerable to one that doesn’t.
Many of the commentaries, even those from bishops, are starting to look like evaluations for the Miss America pageant. Supposedly we are supposed to evaluate candidates on vaccuous platitudes. McCain and the Republicans say they want to eliminate abortion. Well, give McCain credit for 40 million lives saved.
I don’t honestly have a problem with someone who wants to throw their vote away. My problem is with folks who think that by doing so they are absolving themselves from the corporate responsibility for the evils our country allows and commits.
MZ,
rom the corporate responsibility for the evils our country allows and commits.
This statement reads like we have some control over that? I don’t think any voting choice I’ve had in the past 20 years has given me any control over the nebulous ‘evils that our contry allows and commits’. Please correct me if I am wrong, but many of these are not in regards to Middle East policies, but actually US policies towards our neighbors to the south (South and Central America). Has that ever been a campaign issue that has been addressed? Has it been markedly better under different presidents?
Given that, numbers are then the way to compare different abortion policies.
I could quibble with that, since it is impossible to come up with the required numbers, but setting that aside, how do you use numbers to compare abortion policies to other policies? What if you feel, for example, that McCain might lead the country into the second Great Depression? How do you weight that against abortion policies? By the number who would die in a depression? What if you feel the whole raison d’être for the United States is at stake — a country that doesn’t fight unnecessary “preemptive” wars, abides by the Geneva Accords, doesn’t torture, doesn’t spy on its own citizens?
I think that a lot of times voting comes down to a gut feel about a candidate. Each person has to decide that for himself.
Knuckle Dragger,
I couldn’t agree more! This is the statement the American Bishops should have made. Go with your gut feeling. That really is how people vote, and all the statements about remote material cooperation with evil and proportionate reasons are causing a lot of people to tie themselves in knots trying to apply principles people without advanced degrees in moral theology don’t understand.
Good post Poli.
Katerina, I think we are in similar phases of voter discernment. I can’t see my conscience allowing me to vote for either candidate. Sigh….
POLICRATICUS: “I could quibble with that, since it is impossible to come up with the required numbers, but setting that aside…”
To answer that quibble before setting it aside: I don’t think that precise numbers are needed, and all that’s needed is some reasonable estimate of the scale of effect from different policies.
“…how do you use numbers to compare abortion policies to other policies?”
The most important policies to consider are the foundational ones, and the Church has consistently emphasized the various policies around the right to life as being the most important. If some very large unjust war were directly proposed, that could be a policy needing comparison.
“What if you feel the whole raison d’être for the United States is at stake?”
The Church has said that right to life issues are actually a threat to civilization. So they are already a threat to the raison d’etre of the USA, and its existence.
Numbers do not matter for the reasons stated above, and because Catholics aren’t a people who have to choose between which type of killing is the “worst.” We are to oppose all of them. We are Catholic (which means “according to the whole”). We are not people who pick one issue over the others, but see things from the whole. The culture of death as a whole must be opposed. Those who pit abortion or any other issue over against the others, as if the issues could even be separated, is not thinking in a Catholic way (“according to the whole”). The minute we start weighing which lives are more important or start calculating numbers, we are really falling for partisan games. We are to be a peculiar people who do not fit into partisan boxes and who have no need for the numbers game. This is profoundly liberating.
Well said
MJI, most of what you say is good, and outlines what a general approach should be. But, alas, when it comes to voting (which was the topic of the post) we have only very limited choices, and in the act of voting for candidates I cannot give my opinion on each and every issue separately. So I do what I can. And numbers play a part.
Otherwise it sounds too much like saying a Catholic who had decided that it was their vocation to feed the hungry should load up a container vessel with rice and then, with complete indifference to the result, flip a coin to choose between taking it to Bermuda or Bangladesh.
David,
I told you I am a simple guy. You don’t need a bunch of highfalutin degrees to figure this one out.
Poli,
I like your post until the end. I don’t think statements like this make much sense:”it’s important to remember that Catholic faith is supposed to trump political persuasion. A vote for McCain (or Obama) is a concession to the culture of death; it’s not placing a limit on evil.”
Who thinks political preferences are more important than Faith and Morals?
And in what way is abstaining from voting “placing a limit on evil”?
Michael,
You can do all the things you mention, oppose “the culture of death as a whole”, and still reason that certain candidates will better serve the common good. And giving significant weight to the candidates stance on abortion is very Catholic, because the right to life is foundational, and our abortion laws violate this necessary precept in a very grievous way.
It’s not about “pitting” abortion against any other issue, it’s about having an informed conscience that can properly weigh our political priorities in light of what is and what ought to be.
MJI, most of what you say is good, and outlines what a general approach should be. But, alas, when it comes to voting (which was the topic of the post) we have only very limited choices, and in the act of voting for candidates I cannot give my opinion on each and every issue separately. So I do what I can. And numbers play a part.
I don’t think I’m expressing a “general approach” but a very practical one too. If a Catholic is going to vote, he or she should not approach it as a matter of weighing issues, one against the other. Yes, the issues matter, but not against one another. The issues matter in relation to one another. The question should not be “who fares better on my pet issue” but who, as a whole, has a better approach to the entire complex of issues. Who will contribute less to the culture of death, not any one issue of death.
And giving significant weight to the candidates stance on abortion is very Catholic, because the right to life is foundational, and our abortion laws violate this necessary precept in a very grievous way.
Yes, the right to life is foundational, but there are many issues that are direct attacks on that right to life.
It’s not about “pitting” abortion against any other issue…
Yes, for many Catholics it is precisely about this.
A culture of death exists in a society when it uses death as a kind of currency — some goods and conveniences are bought, or burdens removed, at the cost of a certain number of deaths. Such a society has a preferential option for the poor, but with the poor being redefined as the inconvenient. A “society excessively concerned with efficiency”.
How do we tell which society has the worst culture of death? You don’t answer that question, but I think we get a pretty good idea simply by counting the dead.
How do we tell which society has the worst culture of death? You don’t answer that question, but I think we get a pretty good idea simply by counting the dead.
I’m not sure of the point of comparing societies in terms of the intensity of their “cultures of death” if the question is how Catholics in the u.s. are to vote.
“I’m not sure of the point of comparing societies in terms of the intensity of their ‘cultures of death’ if the question is how Catholics in the u.s. are to vote.”
Because each candidate proposes to build a different society.
Paul – You seemed to mean different societies as in different countries.