DeoOmnisGloria.com

While I agree we have a moral duty to vote only for those candidates who defend the unborn (and thereby uphold the common good), I would be careful to claim that such a stance on the part of a canditate serves as a moral litmus test for that candidate. Most Republicans are wedded to big business and corporate interests whose commitment to the common good is dubious at best. I would hesitate to claim that the candidates endorsed by National Right to Life are champions of moral virtue in the romantic way that you have described; most often they have embraced the pro-life camp as an effective political strategy.

I don't see how the Republicans have demonstrated that they care about the other weak and vulnerable classes of our society. Their commitment to Catholic Social Doctrine is singular in their defense of the unborn. And the otherwise laudable commitment of the Democratic Party is notably lacking in this one respect. [Neither party vindicates the Church's moral teaching on human sexuality, so that's a moot point.] Politicians are not moral champions; both partisan platforms are as morally reprehensible as the candidates they put forth. But we as Catholics have a moral obligation to only vote for those candidates who propose to support the fundamental Constitutional rights upon which this country was founded in keeping with the natural law.

In other words: the moral litmus test will not be read in our elected officials; it will be read in those of us who elect them.

I agree with SWP's reticence to embrace a litmus test - which is exactly what this forum advocates. Litmus tests require little, if any, thinking on the voter's part. And when a Catholic Christian stops thinking, well... This is single issue politics, and indeed, Republican politics.

While I do not suggest that all Republicans are inclined thusly, those who run for political office at any level, are more often than not, running in the interests of economic power, global/local economic domination, legitimation, and un-bridled development. The "state of fear" that is cultivated by the Republican party invests itself in a "myth of scarcity & moral bankruptcy" all the while divesting itself from any responsibility to the home that God created for humanity - the earth. Our experience now, and in the past, tells us clearly that the "cry of the earth" is indeed the "cry of the poor" and that the addictive/paranoid protection of our place on the top of a global economy that evinces no parity in either resource consumption or waste (American sits on top of both!), cost millions of lives each year, even lives via abortion. Globally, about 45 million abortions happen per year – 78% of which are in developing countries (World Health Organization). This year, approximately 4 million people will die of starvation (CDC).

Maybe, with a Democratic house (and hopefully Senate), we can begin to move towards a consistent ethic of life, one that instills in Americans a “systemic vision of life that seeks to expand the moral imagination of our country” (again, Bernardin). The way to go about eradicating a world wide culture of death is not to focus on one particular symptom at the expense of all other symptoms, let alone the disease itself. The ProLife movement needs to open its eyes and stop blindly riding the coat-tails of the Republican party – the party of “progress” “development” and “prosperity” that has so enthusiastically and shamelessly taken advantage of the ProLife naivete in order to secure power and influence.

SWP, well said.

Something we should also remember is that the unborn are the weakest and most vulnerable both physically and legally. A criminal on death row, even if executed, always has legal rights and those who violate those rights can be prosecuted.

Those who kill the unborn currently need not justify their ations and cannot be prosecuted for violating the rights of the unborn.

Jack, did you read the first line of SWP's comment? The part where he acknowledges that Catholics have a duty to vote for those who protect the unborn over those who do not?

Did you read the last line of his comment? The part where he says that the position of the elected politician concerning the unborn is a moral litmus test of those who voted?

As I have said, if you believe the Republicans have crossed the line and no longer deserve your vote because of your consistent life ethic, I have no issue that. But if you believe that Democrats have NOT crossed the line and do deserve your vote because it will move you closer to your consistent life ethic, I must ask how does killing innocents for no other purpose than to eliminate them constitute a step in the right direction?

The only evils of the 20th century which even compare with the horror of abortion have all been branded as acts of genocide. For example, the Stalinst purges, the Nazi holocaust, the racial violence in the United States, the death squads in South America, the acts of the Khmer Rouge, and the Rwandan civil war.

If the Democrats advocated killing Blacks, Jews, Slavs, Hutus, Tutsis, and people with a post-secondary education but also committed to reducing green house gas emmissions to a greater extent than the Republicans did, would you then turn around and say that we ought to vote Democrat in order to promote the consistent life ethic rather than fall prey to hot-button issues?

I challenge you to either:
1. demonstrate that abortion is not as bad as the atrocities I mentioned
2. demonstrate that voting for someone who supports such atrocities is somehow permissible because of Republican misdemeanors are somehow worse than said atrocities
3. admit that the Democrats do not deserve the vote of a morally conscious person.

As I have said earlier, I have no issue with your reluctance to vote Republican, but I see no justification for voting Democrat.

Dear Burnt,

Wow! Killing Jews, Blacks, Slavs, Hutus, Tutsis – Stalinist purges, the Nazi Holocaust, racial violence, death squads, Khmer Rouge…you forgot Darfur! These are indeed atrocities of astounding magnitude, and all of them committed in the face of humanity – un-hidden. This alone surely makes one wonder how it is that any administration can sit back and watch these sorts of things since they are not in either our “economic interest” or our “security interest.” But America does just that.

Abortion too, is not only committed in the face of humanity, but it is (unbelievably) considered “legal” in ours and others’ countries.

But what you fail to understand Burnt – as do most pro-lifers (and I am Pro-Life) – is how it is the sublime evil(s) that is the most deadly and most horrific since it is the unseen, unrecognized, or un-admitted(?) evil that betrays not only other human beings to death, but our very created-ness as humans in the image of God. I have spoken about this kind of evil over-and-over again on this forum re: this topic. It is the dark side of our technological, progressive, conspicuously consuming Western culture that directly translates into the death of millions of people, and millions of children, and millions of unborn children by starvation and abortion. It is not just an “accident” that the majority of abortions happen in “developing” countries!!!

My program – if I have one – is to get my Prolife sisters and brothers to recognize that the way they are calling the game (wittingly or unwittingly) results in the maintenance of a deathly status quo (our lifestyle) that is responsible for a sublime evil, a sublime death that is unspeakable because it is un-noticed by us!!!

Regarding your challenges:
1. Abortion is an atrocity, absolutely. What this is all about is not about which of your list is worse, and where abortion ranks in it. That is a waste of time. It is about recognizing the sublime evil of a lifestyle – systemic evil!!! The consistent ethic of life (which is not “mine” – it comes from Joseph Cardinal Bernardin) is an attempt to recognize and address the systemic evil since it recognizes it as the REAL threat to life, and the REAL grounding for the “culture of death.”
2. No one deserves our vote. But then it is unrealistic to just step away from it all and NOT vote. That is a sin of omission. It is equally sinful, in my opinion, to vote via a litmus; “pro-abortion? Not-pro-abortion”? But to try and vote in an informed manner with an eye toward the systemic evil that abortion is a part of. As it stands now, the typical “pro-life” vote results in a lot folks in office that say they are against abortion, and draw policies against abortion, but then push policy that nurtures and maintains the systemic evil that abortion itself emerges out of.
3. A morally conscious person votes with an eye toward the sublime, systemic evil. Thus a morally conscious person will sometimes vote for a pro-abortion candidate – sometimes not…it depends on the entire platform of the candidate, and a prayerful imagining of how things might be if the candidate is in office.

Burnt, don’t you wonder why politically conservative Catholic orgs like Catholic Answers publishes voting guides that give you a litmus to use in the booth - i.e., tells you who to vote for while our US Conference of Bishops does not? Rather the USCCB offers a voting guide designed to inculcate in a voter a “systemic vision of life” ??? Are our Bishops leading us astray while Catholic Answers (and Deo Omnis) is leading to the light???

I'll listen to our Bishops, thank you.

Jack,

It's ironic that you cite Cardinal Bernardin as an "authoritative source" considering the tremendous disrespect he publicly advocated against Magisterial authority (I'm referring to his "common ground" initiative which sought consensus through compromising obedience).

Though while we're on the topic of obeying bishops, we could consider taking this bishop's advice.

That Cardinal Mahony, Cardinal Bernardin, and Cardinal Martini could act as if their words mandated our obedience (given their level "obedience" in documents they publicly released) stretches the limits of credibility. I'd like to close with Mother Angelica's words to the dissenting bishops in the USA: "I've chosen my magisterium, you choose yours"

Burnt,

Who is(are) the US Conference of Catholic Bishops dissenting from?

You know, it is ironic that you rely on Mother Angelica - a staple of EWTN - as authoritative. Do you know that EWTN relies on "experts" of Holy Scripture who say that Judaism is an apostate religion - and in absolute contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic Church, and most notably Pope John Paul 2 on Judaism?

Bottom line, EWTN, this blog, and Catholic Answers represent an odd Neo-Traditionalism in the Catholic Church that is nothing more than a (delayed) fearful reaction to "modernism" as well as post-modernity. This is trench digging Catholicism that embraces Evangelical Fundamentalism when it comes to the bible, and conservative ideology when it comes to politics -and it tenuously mixes the two. But it only mixes the two in such a way that it carefully maintains a comfortable status quo, never challenging lifestyle here in our safe comfortable country, and thus directly- though unwittingly (I hope!) - supporting the Culture of Death.

I care nothing about what your one bishop has to offer this discussion. I will listen to the corporate voice of our Bishops who are struggling to instill in Catholics a broad understanding of the dangers of systemic evil, and this in order to nurture a systemic vision of life. How can you embrace a program that idolizes the end of legal abortion in America to the extent that it nurtures policies that result in millions of deaths each year - and millions of these by abortion?

The politics and economics involved are so much more intertwined, messy, and even hard to imagine that the easy road is to narrow it down to one thing, put on the blinders, and go.

Are you so distrusting of the USCCB? Why does EWTN and Catholic Answers trump the USCCB for you?

Abortion is evil! But it is a symptom of a greater, systemic evil. This greater evil must be addressed holistically, or while ProLifers are busy miopically trying to bring an end to abortion across the glode, the globe (humanity, nature, all of it) will be beyond recovery - no more garden to keep - no more place where those rescued young lives can be lived faithfully, singing praise to God.

Are you wide awake?

LIFE!!!

Jack, given the lack of charity in my previous responses, I think I'll need to constrain myself to answering and asking questions.

Who is(are) the US Conference of Catholic Bishops dissenting from?

Perhaps dissent is the wrong word but Cardinal Arinze has repeatedly said that pro-abortion politicians should not be given communion if they present themselves for communion. The Code of Canon Law insists that in these cases communion must be denied. It is the responsibility of the bishops to correctly administer this law. They have failed in this responsibility.

Why does EWTN and Catholic Answers trump the USCCB for you?

After being asked repeatedly about communion for pro-abortion politicians, Cardinal Arnize responded by directing us to an authoritative source. Namely, a seven-year old child. According to Arinze, we should not need a cardinal to provide us moral direction on this issue because a child can give a correct answer immediately. So to get back to your question, EWTN and Catholic Answers trumps the USCCB because even a seven year-old child can trump the USCCB: No communion for politicians who support abortion. I'll start submitting to the US bishops position on abortion related issues when they see as clearly as a seven year old.

I have one question for you: if the democrats advocated setting up death-squads to exterminate people with SUVs, would you hope for the election of such democrats in anticipation of moving us towards a consistent life ethic? (I'm not being facetious here because I really do see death squads and abortion mills in similar categories though I am open to the idea that the Republicans are rotten too)

Advocating death squads would not be articulated in their platform, I would suspect...unless, they weren't interested in winning.

Your question is the same, I think, as this one: If either a Republican or a Democrat were running for congress, and s/he explicitly articulated that s/he would do everything in her power to maintain "the global economic status quo in order to 1) maintain our conspicuously consuming lifestyle, and 2)to ensure that millions of children continue to be aborted in developing nations at the world-leading rate, and that millions of children continue to starve to death," then I would not vote for him/her. But in fact, the Republican party with its big business, big money agenda, shoots principally for #1, the result of which is #2. It always has. And they know that they can secure a vote from a ProLifer simply by saying, "ProLife." And then nothing happens - except the maitenance of the deadly status quo.

The USCCB recognizes the intricacies of the messiness of the politics and the dangers of ignoring the systemic evil.

Burnt, it is just simply too easy, and too dangerous a response to go after abortion at the cost of supporting Republican politics today - that feeds on fear and the myth of scarcity. Its analogous to bandaging a lame horse's hoof all the while feeding it rat poison.

Enjoy this article that articulates the messiness of the politics involved, as well as the likely futility behind going after the "single issue" of abortion, and doing this at all costs.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200501/wittes

Peace

In light of the excellent documents coming from the recent US Bishop's conference, I think I'd best retract my previous remarks concerning implementing Canon 915.

I can only pray that my bishops (Canadian) will retract the infamous Winnipeg Statement and produce something more in line with what the US Bishops are saying about Family Planning.

Jack, are you willing to answer the one question I asked you before?

Burnt, I already offered an implied answer to your question in my note subsequent to it.

"I have one question for you: if the democrats advocated setting up death-squads to exterminate people with SUVs, would you hope for the election of such democrats in anticipation of moving us towards a consistent life ethic? (I'm not being facetious here because I really do see death squads and abortion mills in similar categories though I am open to the idea that the Republicans are rotten too)."

But your "what if" is as legitimate a question as my (analogous) "what if". Answer mine - and I know what your answer is, as you do mine - and you have my answer to yours.

There is no "final solution" for the unborn. There are no death squads operating such a solution. You diminish the singularity of the evil behind the actual holocaust.

Keep feeding the horse.

Burnt, you have the last word.

Peace.

Jack,

Thanks for clarifying, I think I now understand better after reading that comparing the evil of abortion to the Nazi holocaust is to diminish the evil of the "actual" holocaust (to use your words). Do you mean to say that the "consistent life ethic" dismisses the current abortion atrocities (whose death toll already exceeds that of the Nazi holocaust) as less significant than the "actual" holocaust atrocities?

By the way, I ask questions because I do not want to have the last word. I simply want to understand your position.

Burnt,

You ask: "Do you mean to say that the "consistent life ethic" dismisses the current abortion atrocities (whose death toll already exceeds that of the Nazi holocaust) as less significant than the "actual" holocaust atrocities?"

No. A consistent ethic of life recognizes the evil of abortion. But it recognizes that abortion is an evil symptom of a larger, encompassing, and so more sublime systemic evil. From a perspective embracing a consistent ethic of life, the singular attempts by many ProLifers to stop abortion in the US via electing politicians and law makers who back big business, big money, global economic status quo, etc., but say they are against abortion, contributes in the long run to sustaining the very symptom of abortion across the globe - where most abortions happen, in developing nations.

Regarding the evil of the actual holocaust and the evil of abortion, the numbers matter little. It is the singularity - the conscientious character of the will behind the Nazi holocaust that makes it incomparable(sp?) with abortion. Like I said, there are no doctors in America (that I know of) who are explicitly campaigning to "exterminate unborn children." There is no explicitly articulated "final solution" when it comes to abortion.

Peace.

Readers,

I have two recommendations for the U.S. electorate prior to the 2008 Presidential elections:

1. DO NOT VOTE FOR ANY CANDIDATE WHO IS LESS THAN 60 YEARS OLD. The Office of the Presidency is NOT an institute of advanced education for politicians who have spend little intellectual energy considering our society, history, foreign cultures and mindsets, and the other complexities that influence our lives. We shouldn’t have to pay for the education of our presidents. We need to support politicians who have already arrived at the sobering conclusions about human nature, perceptions of others, and that history matters. We need to study the life of Thomas Jefferson.

2. DO NOT REDUCE THE ELECTION TO ONE OR TWO ISSUES. We play out the whole pathology of a dumbed-down electorate when we obsess about one issue or another, confusing our fixed (limited) mind-sets with strength of character. If we want to attract good candidates to the Presidency, we must be a responsible electorate. Do you know any good leaders who want to be President? The need to pander to the Israeli and Miami-based Cuban lobby, or kiss-up to the liberal freaks in L.A. and New York, prevents good people from wanting to lead our nation. So, we end up with unqualified, self-absorbed, borderline sociopath politicians who are tools of selfish, unpatriotic interest groups and their single-issue agendas. We need to be open to true leadership and intelligence. We need the smartest people in the Oval Office.

Michael O.

Post a comment