Voting & Intrinsic Evil
Since the election is heating up and the issue of voting as cooperation in intrinsic evil is once more being discussed by Catholics around St. Blog's, I thought I'd share some insights on the topic that I gleaned from two world class experts in the subject back on election day, 2004.
Before I begin, I must emphasize: I am not a moral theologian nor do I play one on the internet. I am reporting what I was told by two outstanding theologians with special concerns and expertise in the life issues. I had this conversation the night before I left to return home and wrote it down as soon as I got home.
"I’ve just returned from a couple weeks in Melbourne, where, with the help of Fr. Mike Fones and Clara Geoghegan, I trained the beginnings of our first teaching teams in Australia. Instead of being glued to CNN on November 2 (election day, 2004) we were wrestling with the much more enjoyable problem of picking the winner of the Melbourne Cup – a nationally televised horse race that is a combination of Ascot and the Kentucky Derby and brings the whole of Australia to a halt. (I won $12 AU in the first racetrack bet of my life)
While there, I took the opportunity to ask two world-class experts on Church’s teaching in this area (who are both known for their careful orthodoxy) and the intense political debate that it had engendered among Catholic voters in the US. One was Bishop Anthony Fisher, OP of Sydney (recently elevated by Cardinal Pell), who has a PhD in bioethics and is recognized as (in John Allen’s words) “one of the sharpest minds in English-speaking Catholicism”. The other was Dr. Tracey Rowland, Dean of the John Paul II Institute in Melbourne, and one of most respected new theologians emerging today. Clara has known both of them since they were all university students together – the Australian Catholic world is a small one!
Voting as formal cooperation in intrinsic evil:
1. Both Fisher and Rowland emphasized that Church teaching is “very underdeveloped” in this area. Bishop Fisher had attended a symposium in Rome on Evangelicum Vitae 73 in February of 2004. EV 73 reads in part:
"73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. . .
In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it."(98)
A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. . . 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."
Bishop Fisher said that at this symposium two top notch, orthodox theologians presented completely opposite views and neither could be considered “wrong” in light of current Church teaching (although Fisher privately agreed with one over the other). The bishop noted that only about 9 scholarly works exist on the subject and that he has read them all. In other words, there is, as yet, no authoritative interpretation of EV 73 to guide us.
2. Fisher stated that there was no theological basis for asserting categorically that a Catholic could not, in good faith, vote for either US candidate since both had serious problems from the perspective of Church teaching. Fisher said that if he were an American, he’d be voting for Bush – precisely because of the abortion issue, but that it would be a matter of personal judgment. Life issues had been his personal passion since he was at university and naturally they dominate his moral appraisal of the current scene. Fisher noted that other people with other expertise would naturally be pre-occupied with different areas of grave concern that would shape their prudential judgment.
3. Fisher then made a fascinating comment that I have not heard elsewhere - that there is no basis in Church teaching for comparing two very different “intrinsic evils” and determining that one is objectively and absolutely more grave than the other.
One can compare levels of a similar intrinsic evil. You could say that 4,000 abortions is more grave than 40 or that a genocidal conflict that killed 10,000 was a more grave evil than one in which only 500 died. But you can’t, on the basis of current Catholic teaching, categorically determine that abortion, for instance, is always and absolutely more grave than a given unjust war or torture or severe economic injustice. By definition, something that is truly intrinsically evil can’t be relatively less evil anymore than a person can be only mostly dead (well, outside the alternate universe of the Princess Bride, anyway - although I did encounter some situations that came pretty close on the cancer unit).
So one cannot state, as definitive Church teaching, that the gravity of the evil of abortion must outweigh all other intrinsic evils or any possible combination of intrinsic evils in our political calculations. An individual could arrive at such a prudential judgment in a particular situation in good faith but an equally faithful Catholic could come to a quite different prudential conclusion in good conscience. (Sherry’s note: As one theologian of my acquaintance pointed out so clearly this summer, one problem in the discussion in the US was a failure to make it clear when the bishops were sharing their own prudential judgments rather than articulating Church teaching that obliged all the faithful.)
1) When I (Sherry) said that it was my observation that quite a few serious Catholics in the US were under the impression that doctrine had developed in this area, Fisher responded that a few bishops making personal pronouncements simply isn’t the development of doctrine.
When I asked Rowland why some US bishops had made such statements when they must know that Church teaching did not support it, she responded that many bishops are not familiar with the nuances of Church teaching in this area. Rowland (unlike Fisher, who thought that any talk of ex-communication in the midst of an election was imprudent) believed that then Cardinal Ratzinger (she said that she was a big fan of Ratzinger) had made a good case for refusing communion to a politician who publicly supports abortion but also agreed that there simply wasn’t any clear Church teaching about voting as a form of formal cooperation with evil."
End of report. Comments?
Note: I'm home and will be monitoring this conversation closely. The usual ground rules around here apply.
posted by Sherry W @ 8:53 AM
33 Comments
33 Comments:
The argument, as I've understood it, is that abortion is always and everywhere morally evil. War, as awful as it may be at times, is a matter of prudential judgment on the part of free governments; there may be cause for just war when all else has failed (clearly this excludes preemptive strikes which do not attempt at dialogue between parties). Abortion is not a right to be legislated; it should never be protected by law. If the Congress declares war, they have the constitutional power to do so; whether or not it is just for them to do so is evident in the righteousness of the cause. It was right for Congress to declare war on the Axis powers-- not because their human dignity was any less, but because all attempts at appeasement had failed. It was not right to declare war on Iraq-- we had not been directly threatened by Saddam nor had we engaged in dialogue before occupying his territory. We simply acted first and asked questions later.
The point? No matter what reason a person may put forward, there is NO condition or circumstance in which abortion is morally licit. Ever.
The righteousness of war is a matter of opinion and should ALWAYS be used as a LAST RESORT. The same could be said of capital punishment: last resort, last resort, last resort. There is no such allowance for abortion. There is never a last resort in which it would be just to murder a child.
Hmmm, I too am not an expert in moral law, so I may quickly show this fact!
In terms of causation, it would seem that in the abortive act, the abortionist and the organizations closely are the proximate essential cause in committing the grave act. Political support financially and legally is the remote essential cause. Voting for the politician who supports the legal framework is serious, but cannot be considered grave unless the intent of the voter is to support abortion.
This is where I drift off into confusion...
We have been discussing this question at length on Mirror of Justice (mirrorofjustice.blogs.com), a blog devoted to the development of Catholic Legal Theory. My recent contribution to the issue - in response to the suggestion that one could not support Obama if one were Catholic is here: http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2008/05/on-teresa-colle.html.
Regarding the first comment, perhaps the harder comparison is abortion on one side and torture on the other. While there are certainly just wars from a Cahtolic perspective, it is clear that torture is always a moral evil.
Susan, thanks for the link to Mirror of Justice. It looks like a fascinating blog, and I'll look it over as I prepare some presentations I have to give this fall re: the election.
Blessings!
I guess I'm confused about the implication that say, Archbishop Burke, who wrote an article for a canon law journal on this - is ignorant.
I'm just reporting. I don't think Archbishop Burke was archbishop yet - in any case, Australian theologians are not necessarily familiar with the whole US episcopate.
These are two world class expert theologians (not canon lawyers which is another, specialized discipline) reporting the status of the theological debate.
Their point is: that Church teaching has not developed enough to say "this is universally obliging upon all the faithful" and so faithful Catholics can hold a wide variety of opnions about how to protect human life in a specific given situation.
It is important to remember that we are talking about the *application* of Catholic teaching in specific historically situations, an issue upon which there is a great deal of subtle teaching and where prudential judgement become central.
It is indicative that we are the only country where bishops are making these sorts of statements. As John Allen pointed out, it isn't happening in Rome, where the focus is upon the death penalty and where even adamantly pro-life Popes give communion to Italian politicians who support abortion.
In Australia, it is illegal not to vote (so abstaining isn't possible) and the prolife movement is very small indeed. There are no national prolife candidates and Australian Catholics have no choice. So the issue simply doesn't exist there as it does here. Nor so far as I know, does it exist in any other country.
Which raises all kinds of important questions. What we seem to have globally is a growing awareness (and theological clarity) about intrinsic evil as a reality and category.
The dispute is, in a world where universal voting is increasingly the norm (which has never the case before in human history which is why the question of voting is so underdeveloped) and where technology is rapidly creating the possibility of new intrinsic evils (embryonic stem cells) and where the internet and other communications makes it possible to realize that different Catholic communities are focused on different kinds of intrinsic evil (if you are in
Rwanda, genocide would probably make the top of your list) and the decisions of individual Bishops can start a instant national and international debate, how does doctrine in this area develop?
Sherry W
I'm responding to Sherry's claim that "you can't one the basis of current Catholic teaching, categorically determine that abortion is always and absolutely more grave than a given unjust war or torture or severe economic injustice."
I would encourage you to read Evangelium Vitae. There can be no greater injustice than the denial of the right to life. Abortion is not only intrinsically evil, it's an injustice being perpetrated on an innocent and defenseless child.
If torture is wrong because it violates the human dignity of a prisoner whose innocence is in question, abortion is worse because it violates the human dignity of a child who is the epitome of innocence. If genocide is wrong, abortion is worse because it's protected by civil law. If socioeconomic injustice is wrong because it deprives people of the means of life/sustenance, abortion is worse because it deprives a child in the womb her fundamental claim to life. If unjust war is wrong because human life is taken without exercising last resort precautions, then abortion is worse because it's a first resort against a human life by the very person ordained to give life. If rape is wrong because it violates the dignity of the woman, abortion is worse because the mother violates her very person, her very sacrosanct purpose.
Abortion trumps every other moral evil humans have contrived. It's the very worst thing a person could do. It's the greatest violation of human dignity because it happens at the source. God entered Creation through the womb. To deny that is to deny ALL.
SWP:
As I have pointed out several times, it isn't MY claim. I am merely reporting.
I am *quoting* Bishop Anthony Fisher, who has a PhD is bioethics, is meticulously orthodox, and had just returned from a high level, invitation only Vatican-sponsored theological symposium on Evangelium Vitae. I think we can presume that Bishop Fisher has read EV more than once if he is participating in theological discussions at that level.
Bishop Anthony is passionately pro-life and anti-abortion, since college when he founded the university pro-life group. It was Bishop Fisher who made the point:
"you can't on the basis of current Catholic teaching, categorically determine that abortion is always and absolutely more grave than a given unjust war or torture or severe economic injustice."
It was Bishop Fisher who said:
"that there is no basis in Church teaching for comparing two very different “intrinsic evils” and determining that one is objectively and absolutely more grave than the other."
It is his summary of the Church's teaching on the topic to this point.
If someone who is a life-long passionate supporter of the right to life and a true Vatican-recognized world class expert in the area, says something like this - non experts like me need to give him a serious hearing.
It doesn't mean he is absolutely right about everything but I'm sure he isn't just shooting from the hip and that he is probably aware of relevant issues in the Church's tradition in this area that I am not familiar with.
Sherry W
JPII asked, in an address to Europeans cited in E.Vitae:
"How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the MOST UNJUST of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?"
E.Vitae is not just the humble opinion of one Bishop among many. Recall that JPII was himself denied human rights by the Communist regime, his friends were exterminated by Nazis, and he lived through the darkest war in human history. And he used the superlative to describe abortion. Consider that before you claim that abortion sits alongside other moral evils. Consider these words from the same encyclical:
"Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an 'unspeakable crime'."
"...The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider...the one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No more absolutely innocent could be imagined."
"...It is a most serious wound inflicted on society and its culture by the very people who ought to be society's promoters and defenders."
JPII, in E.Vitae then makes an infallible declaration that abortion ALWAYS constitutes a grave moral disorder, a statement of such a degree to which no other moral statement was ever made. No Pope has unqualifiably declared war, torture, and so many other moral evils as ALWAYS a grave moral disorder! Yet even Bishops fail to submit to this infallible decree. They try to equalize moral evils, which E.Vitae expressly condemned. JPII made very very very clear that Abortion is the most condemnable act of moral evil. The superlativity of his condemnation does not render other moral evils less vile, but there is room for prudential judgment. There can be no such room in the question of procured abortion.
In response to whether this constituted a development of doctrine, the CDF answered in the affirmative, a fact which is also denied by many a Bishop. (citations forthcoming)
"In any case it must be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application."
That was the CDF in 1974. JPII than infallibly reaffirmed this and all other magisterial teachings preceding E.Vitae, and the CDF declared that it was in fact infallibly declared.
SWP:
I don't think that you and Bishop Fisher are talking about the same issue. He would absolutely agree about the heinousness of abortion and its moral seriousness.
He is simply saying the Church *does not teach* that voting for a candidate who supports abortion is always and everywhere cooperation in intrinsic evil - which was the point of the whole discussion.
The Church has always recognized the complexity of actually applying its moral and social teaching in real concrete, historical situations where cooperation in more than one intrinsic evil is involved - as in the case in most electoral processes in the west.
Tracy Rowland, one of the foremost emerging theologians in the world, dean of the JP II Institute which specializes in family and life issues, and a theologian very close to Pope Benedict, agreed very firmly with Bishop Fisher on this point.
Two people of such caliber are not making this up, They have no hidden agendas. They weren't lying to us. And the practice of the rest of the Church, including that of John Paul II,, would seem to support their point.
We would seem to be missing or skpping over something important in our conversations around St. Blog's. Not being an expert in this area, I don't feel competent to figure out what that is - but I'm not going to dismiss the expertise of two such sources.
If they say that the Church's teaching is very undeveloped in this area and does not teach that one who votes for a candidate that supports an intrinsic evil is automatically committing a mortal sin regardless of their intent or convictions, I am much more disposed to trust their judgement than that of another non-expert like myself.
At the very least, it should make us think again and retrace our mental steps if nothing else. Simply re-asserting our original belief is not a sufficient response.
Sherry W
I would like Bishop Fisher to clarify then--
If it's expressly forbidden to vote for a law that permits abortion, how can it be licit to vote for a legislator who would vote for a law that permits abortion?
Creating a culture of life necessarily demands that we elect representatives who will do the same. Given the gravity of abortion as a severe moral disorder over and above other moral evils, it would not do to place a politician's voting record on abortion alongside their record on other issues. If they are not opposed to laws favoring abortion, their record on anything else is moot.
This discussion reminds me of my Calculus classes in college when we first started learning integrals. "What do you mean infinity to the fourth power is greater than infinity to the third power - aren't they both, you know, infinite?"
That may sound like a snarky comment but it's truly not one - I'm just trying to frame the discussion in a different way. Each of the topics we're discussing is an infinite offense against the God who made the particular life that is tortured or snuffed out. Our theology tells us that, since God is indeed infinite any offense against him is in effect also infinite; we are reminded of this when we contemplate why Jesus had to come to save us - only infinite redemptive power could redeem the infinite offenses against the infinite God. Our finite attempts at redress are simply incapable of measuring up to the wrong. Put another way, the offenses are infinite not because of the offender but because of Who is offended.
So, with that, we need then do what we learned in Calculus and clear away the infinites until we're left with finites (or, yes, additional infinites with proper relations of powers, but that's a nit). Every life has an equally infinite value to God, so following the logic we remove that from the equation. We're then left with the finites of, essentially, merit, culpability, intention and quantity.
I'm more than mildly disturbed that I'm using math to discuss the everlasting and infinite worth of any given human life. But since we're busy discussing infinites and effectively which of what is a greater evil I thought it might be (at least remotely) relevant.
In that light, I can see some sense in Bp. Fisher's statement. Both (or all) evils are heinous, given that they are an infinite offense to the infinitely good God. Determining the relative weights of the remaining finite characteristics of each offense is indeed tricky and fraught with danger, particularly since we stand so close in this analysis to the ever-looming infinite offense. This feels, in a way, like the discussion in the early Church which ended in the declaration of the teaching of transubstantiation - it is something the Church as a whole has always known but lacked the sufficient vocabulary to express fully and clearly.
With respect to SWO's last comment, there is a difference betweena legislator voting for abotion for a law that permits abortion and voting for a candidate that has taken a position in favor of such a law. What the statement of the American bishops says is that "A Cahtolic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil...if the voter's intent is to support that postion. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil....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 reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil."
Sorry - SWP, not SWO.
I think candidates' voting records on life issues are very very very clear. If a candidate of either party defends abortion as a constitutional right, then that candidate's moral compass is demonstrably misplaced.
I don't hear any candidate campaigning in support of torture or socioeconomic injustice. But there are candidates campaigning in support of abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
Last I checked, acts of torture violate international law and many treaties. But abortion is still legal in this country and many others around the world. There isn't a pressing need to elect lawmakers who oppose torture; the international community readily acknowledges torture as a crime. But there is a pressing need to elect lawmakers who defend the right to life and who will appoint justices who defend the right to life. Abortion is murder. The outrage over Abu-Gharaib at least was seen for the crime it was.
If a candidate does not see abortion (the taking of a human life) and embryonic stem cell research (also the taking of human lives)as a crime, why would anyone want to elect such a person?
Susan quotes, "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 reasons."
What is going on in the world that's more gravely offensive than the fact that abortion remains a constitutional right? The Geneva convention lists a number of acts of war that are considered crimes punishable by law. Torture is a crime. Military tribunals prosecute soldiers who cross the line.
But a doctor who assists a woman in the murder of her child is protected by the legal system in this country. Children are being executed by the thousands DAILY and we do not bat an eyelash. Candidates hold as their platform that they will defend this atrocity and we elect them with flags waving and smiles on our faces.
This is ok? Human lives are being treated as disposable property. Is it really ok to elect a candidate who does not find this atrocious? Is it really ok for a Bishop not to condemn this practice and oblige his flock to do likewise?
Cardinal Chaput said, "Catholics can vote for pro-choice candidates if they vote for them despite (not because of) their pro-choice views. But they also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it."
What is a compelling proportionate reason to justify such a vote?
But apparently Fisher would not countenance this declaration on Chaput's part. The gravity of the intrinsic evil of abortion may not have been definitively declared as outweighing any other intrinsic evil or any possible combination of intrinsic evils, but the intrinsic evil of abortion is the only intrinsic evil that was heinous enough to warrant an infallible declaration condemning it. That the Pope has spoken so mightily against this particular intrinsic evil should give us pause to consider our moral triage. In the face of manifold intrinsic evils, where has OUR nation and THIS generation been called?
We need to begin at the source. And protecting human life in the womb is top of the list.
SWP:
Of course Bishop's Fisher would countenance Chaput's position.
Archbishop Caput wrote very carefully - he is articulating his personal prudential judgement in the area and arguing for its validity - as he is perfectly right to do.
But what Chaput is NOT doing is saying" Anyone in my archdiocese who votes for a politician who supports abortion is automatically in a state of mortal sin and must go to confession before receiving communion." He acknowledges that someone could, at least in theory, vote for a pro-abortion candidate legitimately - without committing a mortal sin. He clearly thinks it very difficult and unlikely but also clearly possible.
And that is the entire point.
You don't seem to understand the Church's very considerable and nuanced teaching on moral decision-making and prudential judgement which is all about very specific cases, not generalities.
Not abortion is evil but
"Is Sue Henderson of Bog Flatts, Louisiana, committing a mortal sin in 2008 by voting for local candidate A for Congress who supports abortion under limited circumstances but strongly opposes government sponsored torture over local candidate B who opposes all abortion but supports the use of torture in the war against terrorism enthusiastically and supports stem cell research because he has a child with a medical condition whose life, he thinks, could be saved by such research?"
Fisher has no authority over the Church's teaching in this area - he is simply observing that it is very undeveloped, that at this moment, there is not basis is saying that one particular intrinsic evil must always trump all other intrinsic evils in our political calculations, and that no such teaching that "obliges all the faithful" exists.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to find out Fisher's *personal prudential position* is very similiar to Chaput's. But as a moral theologian or Bishop, you really need to know the difference between your own prudential read of a situation and the Church's teaching.
He is simply observing the state of normative Church teaching in this area. That Church teaching in this area is underdeveloped or has not developed that you think it should is not the fault of one lone auxiliary Bishop in Sydney.
I think we've run into a linguistic minefield here. Sherry said it quite correctly - theoretically it is possible for a Catholic to vote for a pro-choice politician. That "theoretically" however has been taken as a practical open door which it was never intended to be.
Let me sketch an extreme example. On the (theoretical) one hand you have a candidate who is, aside from the issue of being pro-choice, fairly well in-line with the Church's stance on other moral issues. On the other hand you have a candidate who is to one extent or another against abortion but is very much in support of the military government in Darfur and intends to send them money and weapons to continue the slaughter of millions. Said second candidate also supports FARC and wishes to send them weapons because he views them as freedom fighters.
At this extreme juncture it is theoretically possible that a Catholic can be trying to save as many lives as possible by voting for the former candidate over the latter in spite of and not due to his support of abortion. Historically we'd consider this, perhaps, the "Churchill and Coventry conundrum".
If that seems nearly impossible, well, that's the kind of reason I believe Abp. Chaput was talking about providing to the aborted children when you see them at your death. For my purposes, I see the door open only a tiny crack for such a vote and only in otherwise extreme circumstances. But yes, with that massive caveat, I think Bp. Fisher is correct that it is theoretically possible. I, for my part, hope we never see that circumstance come to pass and shudder to even contemplate it.
Where is it written that the doctrine on voting and intrinsic evil needs to reach some sort of state of perfection or development before a Bishop can exercise his responsibility to teach, sanctify and govern/rule in his diocese?
What authority does a theologian have in the Church? What is his or her legitimate role in deciding such an issue? Although they make a significant contribution, they don't trump the bishops. Wasn't it, after all, the theologians who led the big revolt against Humanae Vitae?
"there is, as yet, no authoritative interpretation of EV 73 to guide us."
That is because we have Evangelium Vitae itself to guide us.
"Fisher then made a fascinating comment that I have not heard elsewhere - that there is no basis in Church teaching for comparing two very different “intrinsic evils” and determining that one is objectively and absolutely more grave than the other"
The fact that you haven't heard this argument before may mean that it is held by very few or even that it is flawed.
I do know that Planned Parenthood, NARAL and every proabortion candidate would love to use these theologians views to further their agenda.
What do you think, Sherry??
Judy
I just don't understand how anything could be considered a more alarming concern than the fact that abortion is LEGAL in this country! Whether or not a particular act of war is just is a matter of prudential judgment (and we have laws that regulate and tribunals that prosecute); whether or not torture has been justly exercised is a matter of prudential judgment (and we have laws that regulate and tribunals that prosecute). But it can NEVER EVER be right to murder a child, embryonic or fetal. There will never EVER be a situation in which a person choosing abortion is making a just decision (yet we have no laws, no regulation, no prosecution). So how could it ever be just to elect a representative who thinks the opposite?
Judy has a point:
Why should academic minutiae prevent a Bishop from exercising his authority over souls entrusted to his care? More Bishops should be impressing upon the faithful the moral gravity of abortion (and all less immediate intrinsic evils) rather than distancing themselves intellectually from the need to do so by claiming they lack the green light.
And I say less immediate because there is such a thing as moral triage. When triage is done in a hospital, everyone is in need of medical attention, but there are those who will be treated FIRST.
Considering abortion has been legal for three more decades than it ever should have been, that should be our FIRST and therefore most immediate concern. Until that's settled, nothing is right- because we're talking about the fundamental right to life itself!!!
We can't debate the injustice of torture when human life in its sacrosanctity at the moment of conception is not acknowledged by the state. If children are still the disposable property of the mother, then all other questions about human dignity are rendered moot. Because if life is disposable at the embryonic stage, life is disposable at every stage. Human life itself has been utterly devalued. How can that not be the TOP priority for every Bishop and every Christian?
A Bishop who does not teach with the Church is a Bishop who is NOT teaching and governing.
No Bishop, can by his unilateral proclamation, make the Church's teaching what it is not. And he certainly does not have the power to declare something a sin that the Church does not teach is a sin. Last time I looked, neither could we.
And something can't be a mortal sin here in Colorado Springs (where our bishop started the whole discussion in 2004) and not a mortal sin in Pueblo 40 miles away (Pueblo's Bishop urged his people to follow the US Bishop's document on faithful discipleship) or not in Denver, 70 miles away (where Archbishop Chaput issued a different intelligent and nuanced statement than either of his brother bishops in the state.
Three dioceses in 110 miles - and all three bishops took a different stand and declared a different thing to their people.
There were 4,695 Catholic bishops in 2002. Of that number, 6 - 8, maybe 10 bishops - all from the same country - have stated publicly that they would refuse communion to an openly pro-abortion politician. That's 2/10th of 1% of all bishops in the world. 99.98% of all bishops have not articulated such a position.
Even fewer have stated that to vote for a candidate who is pro-abortion is formal cooperation in intrinsic evil, automatically a mortal sin requiring confession.
It isn't a significant issue in any other country but ours. And hundreds of millions of Catholics around the west routinely vote for pro-abortion candidates because there are no pro-life candidates to vote for. None of their bishops are demanding that they go to confession or questioning their right to communion.
Bishop Fisher and Dr. Tracy Rowland could be wrong, of course about some aspects of their read of the *current state of the Church's teaching* (remember they both agreed on the essential point) but I think it much more likely that the denizens of St. Blog's who have no theological training and aren't experts in the area are missing or skipping something important.
And the more you insist, without taking a moment to consider whether or not that could be the case, the less seriously I can take your assertions.
The difference between Fisher and Rowland's read and your read, SWP, can hardly be based upon "academic minutiae".
Do you really think that a Bishop can unilaterally change Church doctrine in his diocese by his fiat?
Either what you assert actually is Church teaching at present- and Fisher and Rowland, two passionately pro-life world experts on the topic completely missed the 8000 lb gorilla in the room
OR
it isn't Church teaching at present and they are right.
But either way, the question is certainly not minutiae.
Sherry, you are so right, I for one am just a layperson with no expertise who responded to your request for comments. Here’s a few more.
"There were 4,695 Catholic bishops in 2002. Of that number, 6 - 8, maybe 10 bishops - all from the same country - have stated publicly that they would refuse communion to an openly pro-abortion politician. That's 2/10th of 1% of all bishops in the world. 99.98% of all bishops have not articulated such a position."
These are really impressive statistics. But sometimes in history a small minority has been right, such as the few bishops who opposed the Albigensian heresy against the many who embraced it. And didn't only 2 English bishops refuse to go along with Henry the Vlll?
I say this not because it is an exact comparison but just to show that no matter how valuable statistics may be, they can’t be used to measure truth.
"But you can’t, on the basis of current Catholic teaching, categorically determine that abortion, for instance, is always and absolutely more grave than a given unjust war or torture or severe economic injustice."
However, abortion is the only evil in the above-mentioned list that incurs automatic excommunication.
Judy
Judy:
The point is that IF the Church did, in fact, teach definitively that VOTING (which is the subject) for a candidate who supports abortion was always a mortal sin) - this would be a global discussion with hundreds of bishops involved, not a tiny handfuL in a single country. Not to mention that the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, would need to start refusing communion to pro-abortion Italian politicians which has happened.
Which indicates, that at the present, the Church AT PRESENT DOES NOT DO SO.
You can be personally convinced that Church should do so and that the Church's teaching will develop so that it does do so in future. You may be right.
But because doctrine has NOT developed to this point, you cannot tell another Catholic that they are clearly in a state of mortal sin if they do so in this year's election.
Procuring an abortion does incur automatic excommunication. So does actively assisting someone else to procure an abortion because that is regarded as formal cooperation.
The question which the Church has not spoken clearly and definitively is whether or not VOTING for a candidate who advocates an intrinsic evil is a form of formal cooperation with evil.
We are living through a time where doctrine in this area is obviously developing. So for instance, the list of authoritatively named "intrinsic evils" expanded significantly under Pope John Paul II.
And all of these intrinsic evils now become acts about which the same theological question can and must be asked: Is voting for a candidate who supports one of them an act of formal cooperation?
If you ask it of one intrinsic evil, you must ask it of all - and answer it for all.
Sherry W
That last comment should read:
Not to mention that the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, would need to start refusing communion to pro-abortion Italian politicians which has NOT happened.
What the Bishops do is on their own conscience. But any Catholic, ordained or otherwise, whose conscience is fully developed, would shun any candidate who upholds legalized abortion. You don't need a Bishop to say it's wrong in order to know in your heart that it's flat out wrong to vote for someone who doesn't espouse the belief that human life is sacred. If there are no pro-life candidates in your precinct, activate. If pro-choice candidates stop receiving the support of their Christian constituency, they will have to change their tune. And if we're not doing that small measure on behalf of the thousands of children murdered in the womb each day, how can we claim moral righteousness in any other respect?
And I would second Judy's observation: abortion is the only intrinsic evil that incurs automatic excommunication. It's THAT bad in the eyes of the Magisterium of the Church.
Why should it matter if voting pro-choice is formal or informal cooperation with evil? It's cooperation with EVIL! Enough said.
Something doesn't have to incur automatic excommunication to still be a mortal sin. Procured abortion is formal cooperation with evil. Voting for someone who protects procured abortion as a legal right is indirectly cooperating with evil. Anyone who claims to be a faithful witness to Christ wouldn't have to think very hard to realize that voting for such a candidate would be an offense against God.
And if we start saying it in this country the rest of the world will eventually get a clue.
From the U.S. Bishops Pastoral
Living the Gospel of Life:A Challenge to American Catholics
."9 Opposition to abortion and euthanasia does not excuse indifference to those who suffer from poverty, violence and injustice. Any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing, and health care. Therefore, Catholics should eagerly involve themselves as advocates for the weak and marginalized in all these areas. Catholic public officials are obliged to address each of these issues as they seek to build consistent policies which promote respect for the human person at all stages of life. But being 'right' in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the 'rightness' of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community. If we understand the human person as the "temple of the Holy Spirit" -- the living house of God -- then these latter issues fall logically into place as the crossbeams and walls of that house. All direct attacks on innocent human life, such as abortion and euthanasia, strike at the house's foundation. These directly and immediately violate the human person's most fundamental right -- the right to life. Neglect of these issues is the equivalent of building our house on sand."
In this the bishops treat abortion and euthanasia as foundational issues because they are direct attacks on human life. Judy
Hear, hear!
They are foundational.
Post a Comment
<< Home