Fascinating Stuff

While I'm not a Roman Catholic, and in truth, don't give much pause to what Roman Catholic bishops have to say, I find this to be interesting.

In particular, section 5:

5.  Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in paragraphs 34-37, addresses the question of whether it is morally permissible for a Catholic to vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil – even when the voter does not agree with the candidate's position on that evil. The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil are the following:

a. If both candidates running for office support abortion or "abortion rights," a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or,

b. If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no "truly grave moral" or "proportionate" reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year.

To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or "abortion rights" when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil – and, therefore, morally impermissible.

I'm particularly intrigued by the assertion that there are "no "truly grave moral" or "proportionate" reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year."

While the issue of abortion is one that I usually would rather not discuss (mostly due to my own conflicting thoughts and emotions on the issue), I can't help but find these sorts of declarations from clergy to be more frustrating than helpful.

Comments

[Jared]

1. I think that abortion, in most all cases, is wrong. I don't think that I believe that to the same extent as the Catholic church (and I certainly don't think it's the clear black and white issue they believe it to be.)

2. I believe that most people who consider abortions are weighing difficult issues - I don't believe that people set out in life to have an abortion. I believe that most people who consider an abortion would like to have other options - but for whatever reason - they feel that there isn't another, better choice.

That being said, I think it would be very interesting to see how the Catholic church (and other "pro-life" organizations) would respond to a political candidate who said the following things:

1. The political fight to make abortion illegal would be very difficult and very costly (in terms of political capital, time and actual money.)

2. The enforcement of anti-abortion laws would also be very difficult and very costly (in terms of money, time, effort, etc.)

3. None of the resources expended on items #1 and #2 would do anything to improve the choices of women (and families) who are considering abortions. None of those resources would go to actually making their realities more like God wants them to be.

4. Let's take all of the resources (time, effort, money, passion, etc.) that it would take to achieve items #1 and #2 and instead invest them in making sure that women and families considering abortions have other good, quality options - and understand that they have them - and that they understand the long-term consequences of an abortion on themselves as individuals and on God's larger creation.

To me...that is part of what compassionate conservatism would look like. And that is a conservatism I could consider getting behind.

But another part of the whole truth is that kind of movement on the issue would require systemic changes in the conservative worldview - change that I don't think that worldview is willing to make...but that's another post.

[Bill]

I have a lot of trouble with this, and it's for a variety of reasons.

1) I don't buy "just war" theory. I know Thomas Aquinas was big on it, and therefore the Catholic Church must deal with it. But the last pope repeatedly said that the Church should seek a culture of life. And to me, unless all other alternatives are exhausted, war of any sort is part of the culture of death.

War where millions die should be a "truly grave moral" reason, don't you think?

2) We try, convict, and sentence people of questionable mental and developmental status to death. Why is that not on the list of "'truly grave moral' reasons"? Sheer numbers? The document above seems to imply that "the millions of innocent human lives" outweighs all others by the fact that they number in the millions. Sorry, but that is a poor use of faith and logic.

3) As Jared alluded to in his second point, victimhood in abortions begins earlier than on the operating table. I still find it hard to believe that the "millions" of people choosing abortion (millions? really?) are doing so as a complicated form of birth control. Maybe I'm naive. Maybe the easy choice of buying the Pill at $30 to $50 per month has too high a physical cost and that of abortion is much lower. But I doubt it.

If these bishops don't want to take that into account, if they don't participate in making abortion "safe and rare", then they are more guilty of causing them than voters. They are part of the culture of death.

4) When the bishops came out against Kerry in 2004, I was reminded of the wonderful string of successes the Roman Catholic hierarchy has had supporting political movements. Nazi Germany, Crusading kings, Latin American oppressors. I think they should sit on the sidelines and offer more constructive ways of supporting a culture of life.