In a direct challenge to President-elect Barack Obama, America’s Roman Catholic bishops vowed on Tuesday to accept no compromise for the sake of national unity until there is legal protection for the unborn.
About 300 bishops, gathered in Baltimore for their national meeting, adopted a formal blessing for a child in the womb and advised Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George, president of the conference, as he began drafting a statement from the bishops to the incoming Obama administration. That document will call on the administration and Catholics who supported Obama to work to outlaw abortion.
“This is not a matter of political compromise or a matter of finding some way of common ground,” said Bishop Daniel Conlon of Steubenville, Ohio. “It’s a matter of absolutes.”
The bishops, long one of the leading political forces against abortion, spent the first part of Tuesday behind closed doors reportedly debating the merits of “Faithful Citizenship,” a nuanced guide for Catholic voters issued last November.
Though the document made clear that “the direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many,” it also advised Catholics to weigh issues like poverty, war, the environment and human rights when choosing candidates.
But some bishops said they were surprised to see Catholics cite the document as justification for selecting candidates–like Obama–who support abortion rights. A slim majority of the nation’s Catholics voted for the Democratic candidate.
Several bishops said that Catholics could not in good conscience vote for a candidate who favored abortion rights after Obama pledged to pass legislation that would overturn state’s restrictions on abortion such as late-term abortion bans and requirements of parental consent.
“Any one of us here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow–die tomorrow!–to bring about the end of abortion,” said Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis.
…
They vowed to oppose any law or executive order that might loosen restrictions on abortion.They emphasized that efforts to advance abortion rights would “permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans and would be interpreted by many Catholics as an attack on the Church.” They also urged Catholics in public life to be committed to the teachings of the church.
Read the rest of the article here.
LifeNews talks about Obama likely restoring funding to the UN’s Population Fund and Planned Parenthood awaits “change”, via rescinding the Mexico City Policy.
An article about the Vatican warning Obama on the ethics of ESCR can be found here, and Priest for Life’s Fr. Frank Pavone receives a death threat here. Guess it’s still Friday…
The Chicago Tribune article says that the bishops are going to “forcefully” confront the new administration. I suppose that means they will have a stern look on their faces when they tell Obama and his Catholic groupies that abortion is a really bad thing. But of course, they will not do anything that might actually make them mad, like ordering them to stay away from the Eucharist, because that would be confrontational. and confrontation is a really, REALLY bad thing.
John Allen reports the bishops told Cardinal George to make sure his statement is “prophetic.” As I recall, prophets used to do more than issue long-winded pronouncements.
For what it’s worth, I am in favor of the bishops denying communion to pro-choice politicians. I do hope the bishops’ statement has teeth, but I also hope it is non-partisan and theologically sound.
What might a “theologically unsound” condemnation of abortion be, Michael?
As someone who voted for Obama I agree with Iafrate. There is a big difference between telling Catholics to be pro-life and telling Catholics to vote a certain way.
I do not see any mention at all in the story about a desire to reduce the number of abortions. The entire emphasis is on making abortion illegal and also protecting health care workers’ rights of conscience.
I have had at least one “pro-life” proponent argue to me that he would prefer a legal ban than in practice actually increased the number of abortions to a social and economic program that left abortion legal and actually decreased the number of abortions. That is, a higher rate of illegal abortions would be preferable to a lower rate of legal abortions. I find that bizarre, but I am wondering if this guy was altogether atypical.
Based on the article, at least, the bishops seem not so much interested in abortion as in what the law says about abortion. Do the bishops actually have the right to dictate what American law ought to be? They certainly have the right to oppose abortion, and to demand everything be done to stop it. But do they really have a right to demand, in essence, the overturning of Roe v Wade and specific abortion laws in the states?
There is a big difference between telling Catholics to be pro-life and telling Catholics to vote a certain way.
Indeed, one of those is about an action, and the other is about a vague state of mind which may or may not involve action.
Christopher – I am not referring to the condemnation of abortion. It does not take much theological reflection to show that Christians cannot accept the killing of the unborn. But surely the bishops plan to do much more than simply condemn abortion. I’m referring to particular political suggestions they might make, hoping that their overall approach to political engagement as well as their concrete suggestions are theologically sound. I have found some of the statements from individual bishops during the campaign lacking, problematic even. We’ve discussed them here; no need to rehash them.
A slim majority of the nation’s Catholics voted for the Democratic candidate.
That’s interesting. The jokers at some other Catholic political blog are claiming the opposite. Are there conflicting reports or something.
As a side note, no one deserves death threats. But does anyone else find it disappointing that Fr. Pavone is downplaying the history of violence that has plagued the pro-life movement?
I have had at least one “pro-life” proponent argue to me that he would prefer a legal ban than in practice actually increased the number of abortions to a social and economic program that left abortion legal and actually decreased the number of abortions. That is, a higher rate of illegal abortions would be preferable to a lower rate of legal abortions. I find that bizarre, but I am wondering if this guy was altogether atypical.
I had a pro-life relative tell me that it would be better to have McCain in office even if he didn’t do a damn thing to protect the unborn (which he admitted has been the republican tendency) over an Obama presidency that actually reduced the number of abortions because, after all, McCain believes the “right things” about abortion. What he does doesn’t matter at all, he said. And said it quite openly.
The illegality of murder is a matter of justice. Reducing the number of murders is a laudable goal, but is of significantly lower importance than addressing the fundamental injustice of state-sanctioned murder of the innocent.
The illegality of murder is a matter of justice. Reducing the number of murders is a laudable goal, but is of significantly lower importance than addressing the fundamental injustice of state-sanctioned murder of the innocent.
Wow. So if we meet the victims of abortion in the next life, as Archbishop Chaput suggests, they would rather hear, “I fought to make abortion illegal,” rather than, “I tried to prevent what happened to you”?
The illegality of murder is a matter of justice. Reducing the number of murders is a laudable goal, but is of significantly lower importance than addressing the fundamental injustice of state-sanctioned murder of the innocent.
Zippy,
I wonder if, by the same general logic, Pope Pius XII should have said, “Consequences be damned. It’s better for me to speak loud and clear about the Holocaust than to worry about how many lives might be lost if I did so.”
Michael – I hope the Bishops refrain from making “particular political suggestions.” That isn’t their job. Political judgements are inherently prudential. As such, reasonable, faithful Catholics can and do disagree about them. Are there prudential reasons to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? Maybe sometimes, maybe not ever. But there just isn’t any Church teaching about this one way or the other. We lay Catholics are just going to have to argue it out amongst ourselves and more often than not agree to disagree. Instead of issuing a political call to action, which some people seem to be hoping for, I would much rather the Bishops instead called out Catholics to live their pro-life convictions in the parish more fully – myself included.
Mr. Nickol,
Yes, they have that right, nay, duty, just as they had the duty to argue against specific segregation laws during the civil rights movement.
Granting legal protection for the unborn and reducing the number of abortions are both important goals. Happily they are not in conflict.
David,
Oops, I think I cross posted with you. However, the two aren’t mutually exclusive-I know where I am that there is one crisis pregnancy center and another on the way, and this is not a very large city. The centers are here-woefully underfunded, granted, but they’re getting there. I think it’s a given that all the bishops want to promote help for women in crisis pregancies-that isn’t a controversy. By reforming the laws we may be able to prevent some abortions; ignoring the laws, however, will not make them go away, which is why the bishops’ teaching on the issue is so important.
Catholic politicans who wish to claim the Catholic mantle are obligated to seek legal protections, and certainly to work to deny federal funding.
It is surprising how quickly Obama seems to moving to reverse even the most modest of legal protections, but it does fit with his longstanding campaign promises. We need to keep the pressure up, especially with regard to FOCA and any federal funding.
I have had at least one “pro-life” proponent argue to me that he would prefer a legal ban than in practice actually increased the number of abortions to a social and economic program that left abortion legal and actually decreased the number of abortions. That is, a higher rate of illegal abortions would be preferable to a lower rate of legal abortions. I find that bizarre, but I am wondering if this guy was altogether atypical.
I’ve heard from many of that view. Often they make the argument that they are not responsible for what people do in violation of the law.
A slim majority of the nation’s Catholics voted for the Democratic candidate.
Obama won with 54% of the Catholic vote. I think it is very safe to say that the vast majority of Catholics rejected the assertion they could not in good morals vote for a pro-choice candidate, even when done while in disagreement with a candidate’s views on abortion. That vast majority would consist of 1) the majority of Catholics who voted for Obama. 2) A large additional element who voted for McCain but voted for a pro-choice candidate somewhere down the ballot, be it Senate, House, Governor, State Assembly, etc., 3) Those who voted for the anti-abortion candidate for every office but still intellectually believe the Church does not bind them under pain of sin to vote that way if their judgment is to the contrary. It would take some analysis to exactly quantify that group, but I would guess it is easily over 75% of Catholics.
BA – I agree that they are not in conflict.
David:
Yes. The illegality of murder is more paramount. If there were a law sanctioning the murder black people, it would be more important to eliminate that legal sanction than to decrease the number of murders. One is a question of basic justice, while the other is merely a matter of what it is possible to achieve as a practical matter.
I wonder if, by the same general logic, Pope Pius XII should have said, “Consequences be damned. It’s better for me to speak loud and clear about the Holocaust than to worry about how many lives might be lost if I did so.”
Are you concerned that the Obama administration might actually carry out reprisals against the clergy, as the Nazis did?
That hadn’t occurred to me, but I suppose it would be in character.
Ah yes, Priests for Life — a group that isn’t above tampering with the text of a papal encyclical if it suites their purpose.
Casti Conubii as posted on the Vatican’s Web site:
(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html)
…there is not question here of what is called the “law of extreme necessity” which could even extend to the direct killing of the innocent.
Casti Connubii — Priests for life version.
(http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/casticonnubii.htm)
…there is no question here of what is called the “law of extreme necessity” which could never extend to the direct killing of the innocent.
David termed as ‘bizarre’ the comment about the ‘pro-life’ proponent advocating abortion restrictions even if it increased to increase the number of abortions. ‘Bizarre’ is too kind. I’d offer ‘psychotic’ or even ‘evil’ as closer to the mark. ‘Bizarre’ might more closely match the comment of Michael’ relative that believing the right thing is edges out protecting life in importance. I must say however that, while I do not dispute Kurt’s report that he has often heard similar comment, I have never heard anything like this.
Social movements have a certain quota of unhinged leaders and followers. Any fair assessment of the prolife movement suggests that it has its share and more. It has certainly been ‘successful’ in converting many people I know from prolife to anti-anti-abortion. That is, the rhetoric and tactics of the movement make it very tempting to go with the prochoice zeitgeist and distance oneself from prolife identification. Who’d want to be aligned with ‘those people?’
Two points bear mentioning, however.
First of all, the stereotyping of prolife advocates as freaks is unfair and untrue but useful.
…Unfair, because it makes it seem as if all the crazies are on the prolife side when in fact some exceedingly grotesque and callous discourse comes from prochoice precincts, incluiding some who claim Catholic identity.
…Untrue, because there are many exceptional, loving people who have devoted themselves to this cause.
…But why useful? Because such stereotypes reduce the cognitive dissonance for progressive Catholics like me. We can select the outliers for scorn, imply that the are representative, and justify our distancing from advocacy for the unborn.
Secondly, the abandonment of ‘seamless garment’ advocacy was surely hastened by its rejection by Catholic conservatives, but it was never embraced by Catholic progressives in other than a rhetorical fashion. The former were largely eager to discredit any comprehensive focus on violence for fear that their issue would be submerged. The latter were largely uncomfortable with any association with the abortion issue, so offputting it is to others who endorse our progressive agenda.
As others have suggested, it is a false dichotomy in fact. But if one were convinced that pursuing the illegality of murder stole resources from efforts to reduce the number of murders, making murder illegal — removing the legal sanction of murdering a whole class of people — would take priority.
“Our faith requires us to oppose abortion on demand and to provide help to mothers facing challenging pregnancies,” Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia and Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, N.Y., said in an October 21 USCCB statement: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2008/08-154.shtml
“Providing support for pregnant women so they choose to have their babies is a necessary but not sufficient response to abortion. Similarly, reversal of Roe is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restoring an order of justice in our society’s treatment of defenseless human life,” they said.
As the bishop have said – the true pro-life/pro-person movement is NOT interest in just overturning Roe v. Wade is also actively involved in having to support women with crisis pregnancy to have and know what their options are.
I know many hate the fact that the topic of abortion tend to dominate the discussion about “the Catholic vote”. But I do not think those who are passionate about life issues should be bullied or cowed into silent submission by those who call us “narrowly focused”. It can be tempting to make peace with or seek to accommodate or appease those with no interest in compromising their pro-abortion. But many Catholics are not trying to find “middle ground” or torture or war – as they should not! So, why should those passionated about the unborn compromise?
Zippy is right on. The common good must sometimes take priority over the good of particular individuals, the reason being that a necessary condition for the possibility of each and every individual citizen attaining their proper good is that their exists societal, economic and political conditions which foster the common good. This principle underlies all of Catholic Social Doctrine (and the Aristotelian/Thomistic political theory which in turn under girds CSD) and is the reason why Evangelium Vitae makes it abundantly clear that we cannot pretend to further the common good while also permitting legalized abortion. “Lets work to make abortion unnecessary, even if legal” is not an option for Catholics. That said, in actuality, there is no reason to pit a “hearts and minds” approach against a legal approach with respect to abortion- the two can and must go hand in hand.
What might a “theologically unsound” condemnation of abortion be, Michael?
One can arrive at a conclusion (e.g., abortion is intrinsically immoral/abortion should be outlawed) but have an unsound argument. This tends to diminish the evidential quality of the conclusion, leaving those who do not hold the conclusion to remain unpersuaded. A theologically sound argument, I suggest, is one whose line of reason is logically coherent and whose conclusion can be accepted on account of the connection of the premises, be they political, theological, philosophical, etc.
Political judgements are inherently prudential.
This is false. Consider revising your statement to read: Some, perhaps most, political judgments are prudential.
There is an interesting “behind the scenes” look at how the bishops approach the abortion issue in this newspaper blog:
http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/belief-blog/2008/Nov/11/double-minded-bishops/
Doesn’t sound as if “forceful” is any more likely to characterize their stance now than it did in times past.
Yes, they have that right, nay, duty, just as they had the duty to argue against specific segregation laws during the civil rights movement.
ragekj ,
I live through the civil rights movement, and I don’t remember the American bishops intervening at all, let alone producing voter guides on how to vote about segregation. I am not quite old enought to have lived through the Civil War, but it is my understanding that the position of Catholic bishops was pretty much dependent on where they lived — North or South.
I will welcome correction if I am wrong on any of this.
In 1947, Archbishop Ritter of St. Louis sent a letter to the pastors that the Catholic schools of the archdiocese were not to discriminate in the admission of any students.
In 1953, Bishop Vincent Waters of Raleigh, North Carolina, issued a pastoral letter which stated: “Therefore, so that in the future there can be no misunderstanding on the part of anyone, let me state here as emphatically as I can: There is no segregation of races to be tolerated in any Catholic Church in the Diocese of Raleigh. The pastors are charged with the carrying out of this teaching and shall tolerate nothing to the contrary.”
In 1956, Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans issued a pastoral letter on racial segregation in Catholic schools and stated that racial segregation was morally wrong and sinful. Archbishop Joseph Rummel excommunicated outspoken opponents of his plans to desegregate the archdiocesan schools, including a powerful local politician. In this he received the support of the Holy See whose spokesman, as reported by The New York Times, said that “any Catholic unwilling to admit the fundamental equality of all human beings…proclaims that he is not a Catholic.”
In 1958 Bishop Richard Gerow of the Diocese of Jackson, Miss., paid a surprise visit to St. Anne Church near Natchez after hearing that there had been threats against black Catholics attending the church. He announced to the congregation that any attempt to keep a black Catholic out of Catholic churches in his diocese was a mortal sin—one that could only be absolved by the bishop himself.
In 1960, Cardinal Meyer of Chicago make it an archdiocesan policy to “remove from the Church on the local scene any possible taint of racial discrimination and racial segregation from the whole community”
In 1958 the US bishops spoke out against the blatant forms of racism that divided people through discriminatory laws and enforced segregation. They pointed out the moral evil that denied human persons their dignity as children of God and their God-given rights. (Discrimination and Christian Conscience. National Catholic Welfare Conference. 1958)
A decade later in a second pastoral letter the Us bishops again underscored the continuing scandal of racism called for decisive action to eradicate it from our society. This letter said that the “unfinished business” of the Catholic community was the total elimination of discrimination in Catholic parishes, schools, hospitals, and other institutions as well as providing generous support for the poor. (National Race Crisis. National Conference of Catholic Bishops. 1968)
In their 1979 statement “Brothers and Sisters to Us,” the Catholic bishops of the United States labeled racism “a sin” and a violation of “the fundamental human dignity of those called to be children of the same Father.”
David,
At least a few Irish Catholic Bishops in the North actually opposed efforts at emancipation ,while being against slavery, as the feared for the economic well-being of their newly arrived in America Irish flock.
A good book about this “How the Irish became White.”
Here is a link:
http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Became-White-Routledge-Classics/dp/0415963095/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1226545842&sr=8-1
Nathan gives a very good accounting of the actions The Most Reverend Prelates Ritter (a very saintly man), Waters, Rummel, Gerow, and Meyer took to end the practice of segregation within the Catholic Church — African Americans required to sit in the back of the church, receive communion after whites, prohibited from enrolling their children in parish schools, assigned to segregated wings of Catholics hospitals and holding separate First Communion classes for white and African American children, as well as refusing membership in the Knights of Columbus to otherwise qualified Catholic men because of race. I am well aware that the pew I sit in each Sunday was once reserved for a particular race.
It is admirable the above mentioned bishops reformed the previous policies of the Church.
The 1958, 1968 and 1979 statements were bold and strong declarations of the sinfulness of the act of racism.
The Catholic Church made a significant contribution in changing “hearts and minds” on matters of race. While frequently criticized for “moving too slow” and “not being firm enough”, her pastoral and understanding approach towards her own members probably was more effective in the end than the more strident tactics demanded by some.
Cardinal O’Boyle’s prayer at the 1963 March on Washington should not be forgotten either.
In addition to all of these actions, she also would on occasion comment on proposed legislation, including the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
But there were no “voter guides”, no condemnation of Catholics opposes to the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts, no actions against Catholics based on their votes for Strom Thurmond or George Wallace or James Eastland or Public Safety Commissioner Connor.
Overall, it was a model of social action that showed much wisdom and might be re-employed today.
Kurt has just told all of you who advocate increased political polarisation around the issue of abortion why you are wrong, and why the tack you are taking is wrong and ultimately futile.
The only hope you have in your campaign against the evil of abortion would be to emulate the actions of the Catholic bishops during the civil rights struggles of the sixties.
Why? Because to an awful lot of sensible Americans who aren’t Catholic you seem to be demonstrating your egoism and your desperation for the clergy to grasp for the political power they lost in the pedophile scandals. This is what you sound like when you insist that winning the legal battle is more important than saving lives by lessening the number of abortions.
Kurt and Digby:
I am very much in your corner. The remnant of prophetic bishops during the civil rights era did much to persuade the Catholic community to reconsider its complicity in racism. A model of social action, indeed.
But there is a counter story.
First of all, Rummell did excommunicate Catholics who publicly repudiated his directives.
Secondly, honesty requires that guys like us admit we would have applauded public sanction of those who opposed the civil rights acts and supported racist politicians.
I think we can agree that the current episcopal strategy is counterproductive and has the effect of pushing many people away from prolife identification. But I think we must acknowledge that that, to the extent the battle for the unborn is a civil rights issue, forcefully challenging those that would deprive others from legal protection is a point of similarity between activist bishops back in the day and activist bishops now.
There is a fascinating article about Archbishop Rummel and the people he excommunicated in Time Magazine. I have remarked a number of times that it would make a great movie.
Not to take anything away from any of the bishops mentioned, but I think it is actually more shocking that Catholic schools and churches were segregated in the first place than it is heroic that bishops and archbishops desegregated them. And Archbishop Rummel himself didn’t integrate the schools under his control until the 1962-1963 school year, whereas Brown versus The Board of Education had been decided in 1954, and President Eisenhower “ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to Little Rock and federalized the entire 10,000 member Arkansas National Guard, taking it out of the hands of Governor Faubus. The 101st took positions immediately, and the nine students successfully entered the school on the next day, Wednesday, September 25, 1957.”
Also, the three individuals Rummel excommunicated were directly interfering with his efforts to integrate Catholic schools. He did not excommunicate anyone simply for supporting segregation. He excommunicated people who were challenging his authority to integrate the schools in his own archdiocese.
If the American Bishops ever said a word against George Wallace (“I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”), I am unable to find it.
So I continue to be of the opinion that this campaign against Obama by the American bishops is unprecedented, and nothing Catholic bishops did regarding slavery or the civil rights movement is in any way comparable.
Thanks you, David, for saving me from having to type the same. Rummel was quite clear that there was no rightful excommunication for supporting segregation in public accommodations or in principle for Catholic facilities. The excommunication was directed at individuals for attempting to use the civil law to prevent the bishop from exercising the powers of his office. Rummel went to great lengths to make clear his action was for narrow and exceptionable causes.
Mike, I guess I am older than you think I am. There is no “would have” with me. I did not expect the hierarchs to do so. I defended them against radicals who accused them of timidity and closest racism. I was involved in community based organizations that sought to deal with racism among white ethnic Catholics and community relations between Blacks and white ethnics in a way that is in concert with the approaches I currently think best to respond to the tragedy of abortion. I very publically took the position that Governor Wallace and his followers should be engaged rather than demonized and that these blue collar southern whites belonged in the Democratic Party and the progressive movement rather than to be demonized.
I would recommend to you some study of the work of Msgr. Geno Baroni and the National Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs.
Pardon my asking, but: could someone please explain why it would be a bad thing, on general principle, for the Catholic bishops (hypothetically) to exhort the laity to vote for the good, and refrain from voting for the evil? The mere fact that “It’s against the laws and case law of the USA” is question-begging, and irrelevant for purposes of pure morality (since US laws can be–and have been, and [some] are–morally wrong), so please leave that aside, if you would…
Pardon my asking, but: could someone please explain why it would be a bad thing, on general principle, for the Catholic bishops (hypothetically) to exhort the laity to vote for the good, and refrain from voting for the evil?
That’s actually what they do, quite well, in their Faithful Citizenship document. The obvious problem, though, is that it’s far from clear how to “vote for the good.”
Kurt: I take your point. You are entirely consistent.
My point remains if we stipulate that protection of the unborn is a civil rights issue: the hypocrisy re episcopal involvement on civil rights issues goes both directions. Progressives like those you denounced (myself included! I marched with King in Memphis in ’68) deplored episcopal reticience to become involved in public policy *then* but deplore episcopal involvement *now*.
Your narrative of opposing public excoriation of holdouts on civil rights is as admirable as it is rare among progressives I know. The fact that Rommel’s excommunications were for defiance of his orders rather than public support of segregation doesn’t go to the issue of whether he should have publicly challenged the recalcitrants or whether he would have been celebrated by progressives for having done so. Do we seriously think that inconsistency is a uniquely conservative failing?
Mike,
To make sure we are not talking past each other, let me clarify. The bishops speaking out on the sinfulness of the act of abortion and of the need for legislation and public policy initiatives to defend life, is not only admirable, but a failure to do so would be sinful on their part. I applaud all the USCCB Legislative Department does.
The bishops, wisely, did the same during the civil rights movement — speaking out on the sinfulness of segregation and calling for legislation and public policy to address the concern of racial justice.
In both cases, they rightfully spoke to issues, not personalities. The judged legislation good or evil, not legislators.
Senator Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and principles that later became the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not result in the Archbishop of St. Louis (at that time, a most honorable and decent man) making the types of statements during the 1964 campaign his successor made during 2008.
I’m sure many political progessives were very outspoken. I think members of the episcopacy have a different standard.
I would further recommend to you the work of Bayard Rustin.
Kurt:
Thanks for the clarification. I had indeed misunderstood you and I apologize. The distinctions you make are apt. Would that the most vocal bishops were on the same page.
An aside: I wonder how often we participants of this blog medium misunderstand each other, how often we miss that would be picked up in face to face conversation. I simply can’t believe that the differences among us are as wide and as stark as they seem in these comboxes.
Mr. Iafrate wrote:
[exhorting the laity to vote for the good, and refrain from voting for the evil]‘s actually what they do, quite well, in their Faithful Citizenship document. The obvious problem, though, is that it’s far from clear how to “vote for the good.”
Let me rephrase:
What, exactly, would be wrong (via Catholic principles) with bishops saying, flat-out: “Do not vote for so-and-so, since he’s an implacable supporter of objective moral evil on a monstrous scale”? To be sure, IRS regulations and case law would be violated; but–as I mentioned earlier–that’s irrelevant to the moral issue, since IRS regulations(!) and US case law are quite capable of being evil/flawed (just like any secular laws).
Paladin:
Are you assuming such an exhortation would have the desired effect? What if such exhortations had the unintended consequence of swinging people in the opposite direction…a not unreasonable possibility given the low esteem…deserved or undeserved…the bishops have both within and apart from the Catholic community.
What, exactly, would be wrong (via Catholic principles) with bishops saying, flat-out: “Do not vote for so-and-so, since he’s an implacable supporter of objective moral evil on a monstrous scale”?
I suppose it would be possible to imagine a scenario where the bishops would have to do something like that.
To be sure, IRS regulations and case law would be violated; but–as I mentioned earlier–that’s irrelevant to the moral issue, since IRS regulations(!) and US case law are quite capable of being evil/flawed (just like any secular laws).
I agree with this.
I asked this question elsewhere, but I will ask it here briefly. It is doubtful (to me, anyway) that all of these life issues will be resolved in any of our lifetimes. Does that mean Catholics will be obliged to vote for president based solely on these issues (since life issues trump all other issues). Does this mean faithful Catholics will never get to vote based on issues such as foreign policy, the economy, and so on?
David-
Yes. Faithful Catholics are morally obligated to be b*tch-boys for the right wing in perpetuity. That message has come through loud and clear.
Here’s a bishop for ya. (the article is obviously very biased) http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111303.html
A British Catholic bishop has issued a statement enthusiastically welcoming the man who has been labelled the “most pro-abortion US president in history” – president-elect Barack Obama. Bishop Crispian Hollis of the Portsmouth diocese in southern England has said he is “thrilled” at the election of Obama.
The bishop’s message, posted on the website of the Portsmouth diocese, says, “With millions of others, I have been thrilled by Barack Obama’s victory and I thank God for it. For me, it represents a rare moment of hope and optimism which shows American democracy at its best and it is of seismic significance and potential for the whole global community. And so, more than ever now, he deserves and needs us to keep him in our prayers.”
This ardent welcome from Hollis, known in Britain to be on the extreme left of the Catholic Church, is in sharp contrast to a letter issued yesterday by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, in which they warned Obama that “aggressive pro-abortion policies, legislation and executive orders will permanently alienate tens of millions of Americans, and would be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.”
“Yes. Faithful Catholics are morally obligated to be b*tch-boys for the right wing in perpetuity. That message has come through loud and clear.”\
Exactly! The Left has indeed made that loud and clear. It sucks, but what can you do?
David Nichol wrote:
Paladin: Are you assuming such an exhortation would have the desired effect?
I could hope so, but that wouldn’t be the point; sane morality is not particularly concerned with whether the course of action is “politically [or otherwise] expedient”, or not.
What if such exhortations had the unintended consequence of swinging people in the opposite direction…a not unreasonable possibility given the low esteem…deserved or undeserved…the bishops have both within and apart from the Catholic community.
That would not affect the morality of the question, in the slightest; by that standard, Our Blessed Lord should never have allowed Himself to be crucified… since some people freely rejected the grace He offered, and damned themselves thereby–some ostensibly because of the “scandal and/or foolishness” of the cross (cf. I Corinthians 1:23).
David Nichol wrote:
Paladin,
Actually, it was Mike McG who wrote.
Whoops! So it was; I beg your pardons, both…!
Mr. Iafrate wrote, in reply to my post:
[Paladin] What, exactly, would be wrong (via Catholic principles) with bishops saying, flat-out: “Do not vote for so-and-so, since he’s an implacable supporter of objective moral evil on a monstrous scale”?
[Mr. Iafrate] I suppose it would be possible to imagine a scenario where the bishops would have to do something like that.
Do I understand you correctly by assuming this means, “Abortion hasn’t risen to that level of ‘necessary intervention’, in your opinion”?
I am wondering if everyone who voted for the pro-choice presidential candidates Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry allegedly committed mortal sins. Or was culpability less prior to the 2008 campaign before which (to the best of my knowledge) the argument about remote material cooperation with evil was not made or publicized?
Given that Pro-Life Catholics have concluded that Obama is a supporter of ‘objective moral evil on a monstrous scale’ certainly exceeding any of this misdeeds of the Spanish Republic, why are we talking about voting at all instead of looking for a new set of four insurgent generals?
David Nickol wrote:
I am wondering if everyone who voted for the pro-choice presidential candidates Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry allegedly committed mortal sins.
In many cases, very probably. I will point out that none of the other candidates, to my knowledge, explicitly promised to sign the Freedom of Choice act as his very first presidential act; that *would* bump up the gravity of the choice to vote for him, don’t you think?
[...] the primary goal of the pro-life movement. Zippy spoke in favor of the former and stated his case thusly: The illegality of murder is more paramount. If there were a law sanctioning the murder black [...]
[...] the primary goal of the pro-life movement. Zippy spoke in favor of the former and stated his case thusly: The illegality of murder is more paramount. If there were a law sanctioning the murder black [...]
Paladin –
So Obama is worse than Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore and Kerry. But there is the remaining question: From a Catholic standpoint, is Obama (with the Democratic Congress) worse than the Spanish Republic of 1936?