Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Thursday, May 12, 2016
Socrates, Pope Francis, and Politicians
“I am wiser than this man; for neither of us really knows anything fine and good, but this man thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas I, as I do not know anything, do not think I do either. I seem, then, in just this little thing to be wiser than this man at any rate, that what I do not know I do not think I know either.” (Apologia 21d)
Plato, Plato in Twelve Volumes Translated by Harold North Fowler; Introduction by W.R.M. Lamb., vol. 1 (Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1966).
So, today we saw another misrepresentation of Pope Francis. He spoke about investigating the role of the ancient position of deaconesses and clarifying what role they might play in the Church today. This suddenly became “Pope to investigate ordaining female deacons.” This resulted in both the radical traditionalist looking for “proof” that the Pope is a heretic, and the misguided Catholic who thinks the Church can ordain women jumping to the inaccurate opinion that the Pope justified their views. Once again we had people commit eisegesis, letting their preconceptions interfere with an accurate understanding. Debunking this was pretty easy compared to other incidents.
But after finishing this debunking, I had a thought. We’re quick in investigating false claims when it challenges what we find important. But we seem willing to take the same sources at their word if it supports our friend or harms our foe. This is more noticeable in an election year. We want our candidate to get elected and whatever harms the opponents of the candidate is good enough. So we end up sharing links which achieve this on social media without considering their accuracy.
The problem is, as Christians, we’re not supposed to do this. We’re supposed to speak the truth and live it. This obligation holds firm regardless of whether we talk about the Pope or about controversial politicians like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump or Paul Ryan (to pick out four controversial names this election cycle from the headlines). We have to avoid rash judgment and calumny in what we say or what we repost. The Catechism tells us:
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:
— of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
— of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
— of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one’s neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 594–595.
Before a person makes a negative interpretation about the character of someone, he has the obligation to discover (to the best of their ability) whether the charge is true or whether it comes from a partisan interpretation of the facts. If it is the latter, we need to ask ourselves if this interpretation is the only one possible or if there are other justified interpretations that do not prove the moral badness of the target. In other words, we need to make sure we are not playing the hypocrite. If we object to people misrepresenting or defaming what we hold important, we must not do the same thing when it comes to people we dislike.
For that matter, if someone we like actually does wrong, we can’t pretend that it doesn’t matter and kick it under the rug either. So, for example, if we denounce corruption in one candidate, we cannot be silent if a candidate we like is also corrupt.
Discerning the right thing to do can be a fine line to walk. But it is about not letting our prejudices lead us to act unjustly through action or omission. If someone does wrong, we can’t condone it. But we do have to make sure it is wrongdoing and not disagreement over the best way to do things or a misunderstanding over what happened.
I don’t want to give the impression that I’m the wise Socrates from the quote in the beginning of this article and everyone else is the person who thinks he knows and does not. I had to catch myself in the act of doing this before realizing I was playing a double standard. I noticed that I just took the word of the mainstream media when it came to public figures I disliked and investigated it when it involved people I approved of. But when I looked more closely at what the articles alleged, I saw other reasonable interpretations than moral badness. Because of this, I had to ask myself, “What sort of witness am I leaving to support my promotion of Catholic moral teaching."
I didn’t like the answer I gave myself.
Since, as Christians, we’re called to be the light of the world, the city on the hill, the salt of the earth (see Matthew 5:13-16), we have to consider what sort of beacon we give to the world compared to the beacon we’re supposed to give. That means we have to do what is right, speaking the truth, even when we think the person involved seems entirely wrong.
Monday, October 20, 2014
Saturday, April 28, 2012
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Commenting on the New Comment Period
Reports are that we're having a new comment period for those institutions which are non-profit, but don't fall under the Obama administration's exceptionally narrow definition of a religious organization, like say Catholic Hospitals and Universities. I'm not impressed.
First of all, the Obama administration doesn't even have the Constitutional authority to do this. The Constitution forbids laws which interfere with the free practice of religion. The only reason this can happen is because members of our government aren't bothering to stand up to the Obama administration's violation of the Constitution and the Presidential Oath of Office:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (US Constitution Article II, Section I).
Merely commenting on the extent of the violation of the Constitution ought to be allowed falls short of the defense of the Constitution.
Second, Those who have freedom of religion under the Constitution do not merely consist of churches and non-profit organizations. Men and women who are religious believers but also work in a for-profit business also have the freedom of free exercise of religion. If Catholics in the Insurance industry believe it is their moral obligation not to cooperate with the moral evils of contraception by funding them, and if the government forces insurers to fund contraception and abortion, then it follows that the government is interfering with their moral obligations according to their religion.
No matter how Obama and his supporters may spin it, the HHS Mandate, and even the Comment Period are open and flagrant violations of the Constitution simply by their existence.
Ultimately, the morality of contraception and abortion will have to be settled in America, and the Catholic Church will certainly need to make clear why our teaching is not mere opinion in order to lead people to the truth – and this is what they are trying to do. They are not trying to pass any "stealth legislation" to ban these things by trickery. So long as the voters and politicians of America fail to recognize this truth, the issues of contraception and abortifacients will continue to be accepted.
However, even the acceptance by a majority does not mean it is permitted to force the minority, who believes it to be evil, to accept it.
We used to recognize this was tyranny (oppressive and arbitrary rule seized without legal right to do so).
Why not now?
+Pray for our Country
Commenting on the New Comment Period
Reports are that we're having a new comment period for those institutions which are non-profit, but don't fall under the Obama administration's exceptionally narrow definition of a religious organization, like say Catholic Hospitals and Universities. I'm not impressed.
First of all, the Obama administration doesn't even have the Constitutional authority to do this. The Constitution forbids laws which interfere with the free practice of religion. The only reason this can happen is because members of our government aren't bothering to stand up to the Obama administration's violation of the Constitution and the Presidential Oath of Office:
Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." (US Constitution Article II, Section I).
Merely commenting on the extent of the violation of the Constitution ought to be allowed falls short of the defense of the Constitution.
Second, Those who have freedom of religion under the Constitution do not merely consist of churches and non-profit organizations. Men and women who are religious believers but also work in a for-profit business also have the freedom of free exercise of religion. If Catholics in the Insurance industry believe it is their moral obligation not to cooperate with the moral evils of contraception by funding them, and if the government forces insurers to fund contraception and abortion, then it follows that the government is interfering with their moral obligations according to their religion.
No matter how Obama and his supporters may spin it, the HHS Mandate, and even the Comment Period are open and flagrant violations of the Constitution simply by their existence.
Ultimately, the morality of contraception and abortion will have to be settled in America, and the Catholic Church will certainly need to make clear why our teaching is not mere opinion in order to lead people to the truth – and this is what they are trying to do. They are not trying to pass any "stealth legislation" to ban these things by trickery. So long as the voters and politicians of America fail to recognize this truth, the issues of contraception and abortifacients will continue to be accepted.
However, even the acceptance by a majority does not mean it is permitted to force the minority, who believes it to be evil, to accept it.
We used to recognize this was tyranny (oppressive and arbitrary rule seized without legal right to do so).
Why not now?
+Pray for our Country
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
TFTD: Dangerous Signs From the White House
Sometimes one can pick up what a person thinks by their choice of language.
While reading about a recent Virginia law designed to protect religious based adoption agencies, I came across this White House issued statement:
While the president does not weigh in on every single action taken by legislative bodies in our country, he has long believed that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals based on their interest in offering a loving home, not based on discriminatory and irrelevant factors.
In other words, the Obama administration views issues of religious conscience which says homosexuality is wrong as "discriminatory and irrelevant."
It seems to me that such an attitude displays a sense of contempt for religious belief and a warning sign that we cannot expect the Obama administration to protect our constitutional rights from those who wish us to either disobey God or close our doors.
Certainly Catholics should stop casting a blind eye towards this administration's hostility to religion. Non-Catholics should recognize that if this attitude towards religious freedom is accepted, then it is a weapon which can be aimed at any belief that a future government decides they don't like.
Suggested Readings for these Troubled Times
With the election season coming up, we need to be informed about the Catholic teachings and how they apply to the American political system. We need to be informed about what is right and moral before entering the voting booth.
Render Unto Caesar by Archbishop Charles Chaput. Written before the 2008 elections, the Archbishop speaks on what Catholics need to consider when voting, recognizing the moral considerations vs. the culture of today.
American Babylon by Fr. Richard Neuhaus. Not Babylon in the wretched Left Behind sense, but in the sense of we are exiles in America just as the Jews were once exiles in Babylon. The Jews then were called to work for the good of Babylon but refusing to be unfaithful to God. We in America are called to do the same.
We Hold These Truths by Fr. John Courtney Murray SJ. Written in 1960, this book is still an amazing insight into America and the political dangers which threaten her. The things he wrote about over 50 years ago are still true today… in fact he seems to have accurately described the mindset of the Obama administration a year before Obama was even born.
What We Can't Not Know by J. Budziszewski. An excellent explanation of Natural Law, and how even those who disagree with the Church can know (even if they choose to ignore it) the basic sense of right and wrong.
TFTD: Dangerous Signs From the White House
Sometimes one can pick up what a person thinks by their choice of language.
While reading about a recent Virginia law designed to protect religious based adoption agencies, I came across this White House issued statement:
While the president does not weigh in on every single action taken by legislative bodies in our country, he has long believed that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals based on their interest in offering a loving home, not based on discriminatory and irrelevant factors.
In other words, the Obama administration views issues of religious conscience which says homosexuality is wrong as "discriminatory and irrelevant."
It seems to me that such an attitude displays a sense of contempt for religious belief and a warning sign that we cannot expect the Obama administration to protect our constitutional rights from those who wish us to either disobey God or close our doors.
Certainly Catholics should stop casting a blind eye towards this administration's hostility to religion. Non-Catholics should recognize that if this attitude towards religious freedom is accepted, then it is a weapon which can be aimed at any belief that a future government decides they don't like.
Suggested Readings for these Troubled Times
With the election season coming up, we need to be informed about the Catholic teachings and how they apply to the American political system. We need to be informed about what is right and moral before entering the voting booth.
Render Unto Caesar by Archbishop Charles Chaput. Written before the 2008 elections, the Archbishop speaks on what Catholics need to consider when voting, recognizing the moral considerations vs. the culture of today.
American Babylon by Fr. Richard Neuhaus. Not Babylon in the wretched Left Behind sense, but in the sense of we are exiles in America just as the Jews were once exiles in Babylon. The Jews then were called to work for the good of Babylon but refusing to be unfaithful to God. We in America are called to do the same.
We Hold These Truths by Fr. John Courtney Murray SJ. Written in 1960, this book is still an amazing insight into America and the political dangers which threaten her. The things he wrote about over 50 years ago are still true today… in fact he seems to have accurately described the mindset of the Obama administration a year before Obama was even born.
What We Can't Not Know by J. Budziszewski. An excellent explanation of Natural Law, and how even those who disagree with the Church can know (even if they choose to ignore it) the basic sense of right and wrong.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
What Will You Do If They Come For You?
With the recent news of the government first forbidding the reading of the letter issued by Archbishop Timothy Broglio (who oversees the Catholic chaplains) condemning the HHS decision, and then after a protest, censoring the letter that was read, we must ask… how can anyone pretend that the Obama administration is not a menace to the rights and liberties of all Americans?
First we have the imposing of a directive which demands that religious institutions either comply with providing coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortifacients or shut down. Now the government is beginning to stifle the freedom to oppose such directives.
Now I recognize that not all Americans share the views of this blog or of the Catholic Church that this blog seeks to reflect. However, even those who do not share these views need to consider something.
If the Obama administration succeeds in their tactics, then there is nothing to prevent them from using these tactics against any other body who displeases them. Moreover, if the administration is removed from power and if these tactics are left in place, then whoever succeeds the Obama administration will also have these tools to stifle dissent.
Regardless of one's views of politics or morality, the Obama administration is taking a path which all people of good will must oppose. Otherwise the American concept of freedom ends in failure and we become yet another nation with an authoritarian regime.
What Will You Do If They Come For You?
With the recent news of the government first forbidding the reading of the letter issued by Archbishop Timothy Broglio (who oversees the Catholic chaplains) condemning the HHS decision, and then after a protest, censoring the letter that was read, we must ask… how can anyone pretend that the Obama administration is not a menace to the rights and liberties of all Americans?
First we have the imposing of a directive which demands that religious institutions either comply with providing coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortifacients or shut down. Now the government is beginning to stifle the freedom to oppose such directives.
Now I recognize that not all Americans share the views of this blog or of the Catholic Church that this blog seeks to reflect. However, even those who do not share these views need to consider something.
If the Obama administration succeeds in their tactics, then there is nothing to prevent them from using these tactics against any other body who displeases them. Moreover, if the administration is removed from power and if these tactics are left in place, then whoever succeeds the Obama administration will also have these tools to stifle dissent.
Regardless of one's views of politics or morality, the Obama administration is taking a path which all people of good will must oppose. Otherwise the American concept of freedom ends in failure and we become yet another nation with an authoritarian regime.
USCCB Rebuts Obama Administration
You can find the article HERE.
We're in a nasty battle for the freedom to do as we ought to do, with the propagandists for the government seeking to mislead people into thinking we're mindless bigots.
This is the time for all people to do what they can depending on their talents. We're now in a battle over the souls in our nation.
USCCB Rebuts Obama Administration
You can find the article HERE.
We're in a nasty battle for the freedom to do as we ought to do, with the propagandists for the government seeking to mislead people into thinking we're mindless bigots.
This is the time for all people to do what they can depending on their talents. We're now in a battle over the souls in our nation.
Friday, January 20, 2012
I Told You So…
"As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)
Back in June of 2011, I wrote a post entitled "The Sooner We Realize America Is No Longer Free, The Sooner We Can Take Action." Today I see in the news that HHS Secretary Sebelius has gone on to show that the Obama administration is without question hostile to the concept of religious freedom in America.
The announcement essentially states that religious groups are obligated to provide contraceptive coverage (including abortifacient contraceptives) to employees, even if the religious groups believe contraception and abortifacient drugs are intrinsically evil and may never be supported.
Instead, religious groups are given until August 2013 to comply with this requirement.
As Archbishop Dolan put it:
“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,”
and:
“To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."
Since such an obligation forces religious groups to choose between serving God and obeying an unjust law, we are forced to become criminals because of the state.
Unfortunately, if this edict is not overturned, we will have to oppose the government of the United States by refusing to obey. No government has the authority to compel a person to participate with evil. If the United States takes this road, this nation will have joined the ranks of totalitarian states who use force and fear to compel people to violate what they believe God requires them to do.
That an administration should so flagrantly ignore the freedom of religion without an immediate outcry and call for the firing of Sebelius is chilling. No it doesn't mean we're going to see "Goose stepping Nazis marching in Washington." I doubt we'll see gulags or other concentration camps in America. But it does mean that we have gone from a nation that says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" to a government saying we have one year to turn our backs on God and obey the state.
I think it should be pretty clear that at this time the Obama administration is the greater of the evils when it comes to the elections, and I pray he is defeated.
Otherwise, I truly fear what our nation will become.
I Told You So…
"As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)
Back in June of 2011, I wrote a post entitled "The Sooner We Realize America Is No Longer Free, The Sooner We Can Take Action." Today I see in the news that HHS Secretary Sebelius has gone on to show that the Obama administration is without question hostile to the concept of religious freedom in America.
The announcement essentially states that religious groups are obligated to provide contraceptive coverage (including abortifacient contraceptives) to employees, even if the religious groups believe contraception and abortifacient drugs are intrinsically evil and may never be supported.
Instead, religious groups are given until August 2013 to comply with this requirement.
As Archbishop Dolan put it:
“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,”
and:
“To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."
Since such an obligation forces religious groups to choose between serving God and obeying an unjust law, we are forced to become criminals because of the state.
Unfortunately, if this edict is not overturned, we will have to oppose the government of the United States by refusing to obey. No government has the authority to compel a person to participate with evil. If the United States takes this road, this nation will have joined the ranks of totalitarian states who use force and fear to compel people to violate what they believe God requires them to do.
That an administration should so flagrantly ignore the freedom of religion without an immediate outcry and call for the firing of Sebelius is chilling. No it doesn't mean we're going to see "Goose stepping Nazis marching in Washington." I doubt we'll see gulags or other concentration camps in America. But it does mean that we have gone from a nation that says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" to a government saying we have one year to turn our backs on God and obey the state.
I think it should be pretty clear that at this time the Obama administration is the greater of the evils when it comes to the elections, and I pray he is defeated.
Otherwise, I truly fear what our nation will become.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Reflections on the Moral Responsibility in Determining the Lesser of Two Evils
How are we to determine the lesser evil when it comes to voting when both candidates fail in some aspects according to the teaching of the Catholic Church?
Preliminary Note: A couple of weeks back, when the Republican Debate was on CNN, I found myself morally troubled by some of the candidate's positions in terms of the Catholic teaching on social justice. Since then, I was thinking of the whole concept of the lesser of two evils and how we need to view our faith in relation to the political parties. While we're still over a year away from the elections, it is important for us to remember how we need to unite ourselves with Christ and what we need to consider in discerning what is a lesser evil.
Introduction
To be honest I found myself with misgivings with some of the Republican candidates . Their stands on certain issues of social justice seems to fall short of the Catholic teaching on social justice (not merely the liberal buzzword either).
On the other hand, Obama's position on abortion and homosexual "marriage" and religious freedom not only falls short of the Catholic position, but is utterly in opposition to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. He actively supports things which the Catholic Church must call evil if she is to be faithful to the teachings of Christ.
So what is the candidate to do when, even if we should like some of the views of one candidate, his views are contrary to the teachings of the Church in critical ways?
We CANNOT Just Freely Vote for Whoever We Might Prefer
Ultimately, we must realize that in cases where neither political party is in line with the Catholic teaching, we are NOT free to simply vote for who we might otherwise prefer. Certain actions are more harmful to individuals and to the state as a whole than others. In other words, you can't vote for Mussolini just because the other party can't make the trains run on time for example.
If we are to endure the lesser evil, we must discern the greater evil that must be opposed.
It might be good to refer to a fundamental insight from Aristotle's Rhetoric (Book 1 Chapter 7):
A thing which surpasses another may be regarded as being that other thing plus something more, and that other thing which is surpassed as being what is contained in the first thing. Now to call a thing 'greater' or 'more' always implies a comparison of it with one that is 'smaller' or 'less', while 'great' and 'small', 'much' and 'little', are terms used in comparison with normal magnitude. The 'great' is that which surpasses the normal, the 'small' is that which is surpassed by the normal; and so with 'many' and 'few'.
So, when it comes to discerning the greater evil, it means it will do more evil than the lesser evil.
On Greater and Lesser Evil
We need to distinguish something first of all. To say [A] is worse than [B] does not mean [B] is not evil. It is simply to say that when being forced to choose between [A] and [B], [A] will do more harm physically or spiritually and therefore needs a more urgent effort than [B] if we cannot choose a selection which gives us neither evil.
In terms of Church teaching and politics, this means we recognize that both [A] and [B] run afoul of Church teaching, but [A] is a greater evil which we must witness against. We must still oppose [B], but if it is impossible to have neither [A] nor [B] we must stop the greater evil first.
The Culture of Death
We must oppose the mindset that some human life is not worth protecting.
Abortion and Euthanasia are actions which come from the view that some life does not have value and is better off ended. The unborn or the infirm/elderly are seen as not possessing life which is worth preserving. Politicians who support these "rights" and enshrine them law are guilty of moving society in a direction which treats certain life as being without value.
So before we could label a candidate who supports abortion as a "lesser evil," there must be a case where candidate treats even more lives as having no value. For example, a candidate who supports infanticide would be a greater evil than a candidate who only supports abortion. However I would absolutely reject the idea that wanting to reduce the dollar amount given to social programs is a greater evil than saying the unborn and the elderly possess lives not worth protecting and sanctioning the arbitrary ending of these human lives.
Proportionate Reasons
We need to remember another Catholic teaching. Even if one does not directly do an evil act (which is always forbidden) we can still have moral responsibility if our act aids an evil act, making it possible. The more essential our action is to the performing of an evil act, the greater the justification is required to avoid culpability in sin.
For example, the gas station attendant who pumps gas into any vehicle that comes along is less responsible for supplying gasoline to a van which drives women to an abortion clinic than the driver of that van who willingly takes the women to that clinic or the owner of the building who rents space to the abortion clinic.
If we know that our actions will cause evil, we are obligated to oppose this evil and not enable it. When it comes to voting for a candidate, Catholics must realize that a vote for a person who supports a thing the Church teaches is evil is an action which allows the politician to make this evil legally sanctioned by the government.
So it follows:
- The person who votes for a candidate BECAUSE he supports that evil undeniably sins.
- The person who votes for a candidate IN SPITE OF his support for that evil is obligated that he must justify his vote before God, and the greater the evil, the greater the justification must be.
Archbishop Chaput, when he was in Denver, wrote in 2008:
9. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.
That's a strong indictment. He's saying that abortion is such a great evil, that to vote for a candidate supports abortion requires such a strong reason that we will not be ashamed to explain it to Christ at the final judgment.
So the person who claims that they are justified to vote for a pro-abortion candidate has to give justification. It's not enough to say you're voting for pro-abortion candidate [A] because you're opposed to candidate [B] because of his position on Social Security.
It's human life at stake with abortion.
Conclusion
Catholics need to stop thinking in terms of, "Well neither candidate is fully Catholic so I am free to vote for whoever I want." We have the somber duty to reject (vote against) the greater evil while challenging the lesser evil to change their ways.
It is clear that right now, abortion is the gravest evil facing America because it is an evil which decides some human lives are not worth living. If you want to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, you MUST be able to justify your position by pointing to the greater evil you think is a greater than the slaughter of over 1 million unborn children EVERY year in America.
Think of it. Catholics must think of the unborn as human lives – not subhuman lives which mean less than adults. So we must recognize that abortion is not merely one issue of many.
When Election Day 2012 comes around, we are all obligated to seriously consider these things and remember our vote has moral consequences which we must answer for before God.
Reflections on the Moral Responsibility in Determining the Lesser of Two Evils
How are we to determine the lesser evil when it comes to voting when both candidates fail in some aspects according to the teaching of the Catholic Church?
Preliminary Note: A couple of weeks back, when the Republican Debate was on CNN, I found myself morally troubled by some of the candidate's positions in terms of the Catholic teaching on social justice. Since then, I was thinking of the whole concept of the lesser of two evils and how we need to view our faith in relation to the political parties. While we're still over a year away from the elections, it is important for us to remember how we need to unite ourselves with Christ and what we need to consider in discerning what is a lesser evil.
Introduction
To be honest I found myself with misgivings with some of the Republican candidates . Their stands on certain issues of social justice seems to fall short of the Catholic teaching on social justice (not merely the liberal buzzword either).
On the other hand, Obama's position on abortion and homosexual "marriage" and religious freedom not only falls short of the Catholic position, but is utterly in opposition to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. He actively supports things which the Catholic Church must call evil if she is to be faithful to the teachings of Christ.
So what is the candidate to do when, even if we should like some of the views of one candidate, his views are contrary to the teachings of the Church in critical ways?
We CANNOT Just Freely Vote for Whoever We Might Prefer
Ultimately, we must realize that in cases where neither political party is in line with the Catholic teaching, we are NOT free to simply vote for who we might otherwise prefer. Certain actions are more harmful to individuals and to the state as a whole than others. In other words, you can't vote for Mussolini just because the other party can't make the trains run on time for example.
If we are to endure the lesser evil, we must discern the greater evil that must be opposed.
It might be good to refer to a fundamental insight from Aristotle's Rhetoric (Book 1 Chapter 7):
A thing which surpasses another may be regarded as being that other thing plus something more, and that other thing which is surpassed as being what is contained in the first thing. Now to call a thing 'greater' or 'more' always implies a comparison of it with one that is 'smaller' or 'less', while 'great' and 'small', 'much' and 'little', are terms used in comparison with normal magnitude. The 'great' is that which surpasses the normal, the 'small' is that which is surpassed by the normal; and so with 'many' and 'few'.
So, when it comes to discerning the greater evil, it means it will do more evil than the lesser evil.
On Greater and Lesser Evil
We need to distinguish something first of all. To say [A] is worse than [B] does not mean [B] is not evil. It is simply to say that when being forced to choose between [A] and [B], [A] will do more harm physically or spiritually and therefore needs a more urgent effort than [B] if we cannot choose a selection which gives us neither evil.
In terms of Church teaching and politics, this means we recognize that both [A] and [B] run afoul of Church teaching, but [A] is a greater evil which we must witness against. We must still oppose [B], but if it is impossible to have neither [A] nor [B] we must stop the greater evil first.
The Culture of Death
We must oppose the mindset that some human life is not worth protecting.
Abortion and Euthanasia are actions which come from the view that some life does not have value and is better off ended. The unborn or the infirm/elderly are seen as not possessing life which is worth preserving. Politicians who support these "rights" and enshrine them law are guilty of moving society in a direction which treats certain life as being without value.
So before we could label a candidate who supports abortion as a "lesser evil," there must be a case where candidate treats even more lives as having no value. For example, a candidate who supports infanticide would be a greater evil than a candidate who only supports abortion. However I would absolutely reject the idea that wanting to reduce the dollar amount given to social programs is a greater evil than saying the unborn and the elderly possess lives not worth protecting and sanctioning the arbitrary ending of these human lives.
Proportionate Reasons
We need to remember another Catholic teaching. Even if one does not directly do an evil act (which is always forbidden) we can still have moral responsibility if our act aids an evil act, making it possible. The more essential our action is to the performing of an evil act, the greater the justification is required to avoid culpability in sin.
For example, the gas station attendant who pumps gas into any vehicle that comes along is less responsible for supplying gasoline to a van which drives women to an abortion clinic than the driver of that van who willingly takes the women to that clinic or the owner of the building who rents space to the abortion clinic.
If we know that our actions will cause evil, we are obligated to oppose this evil and not enable it. When it comes to voting for a candidate, Catholics must realize that a vote for a person who supports a thing the Church teaches is evil is an action which allows the politician to make this evil legally sanctioned by the government.
So it follows:
- The person who votes for a candidate BECAUSE he supports that evil undeniably sins.
- The person who votes for a candidate IN SPITE OF his support for that evil is obligated that he must justify his vote before God, and the greater the evil, the greater the justification must be.
Archbishop Chaput, when he was in Denver, wrote in 2008:
9. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.
That's a strong indictment. He's saying that abortion is such a great evil, that to vote for a candidate supports abortion requires such a strong reason that we will not be ashamed to explain it to Christ at the final judgment.
So the person who claims that they are justified to vote for a pro-abortion candidate has to give justification. It's not enough to say you're voting for pro-abortion candidate [A] because you're opposed to candidate [B] because of his position on Social Security.
It's human life at stake with abortion.
Conclusion
Catholics need to stop thinking in terms of, "Well neither candidate is fully Catholic so I am free to vote for whoever I want." We have the somber duty to reject (vote against) the greater evil while challenging the lesser evil to change their ways.
It is clear that right now, abortion is the gravest evil facing America because it is an evil which decides some human lives are not worth living. If you want to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, you MUST be able to justify your position by pointing to the greater evil you think is a greater than the slaughter of over 1 million unborn children EVERY year in America.
Think of it. Catholics must think of the unborn as human lives – not subhuman lives which mean less than adults. So we must recognize that abortion is not merely one issue of many.
When Election Day 2012 comes around, we are all obligated to seriously consider these things and remember our vote has moral consequences which we must answer for before God.