I agree with Amy that merely labeling something as an intrinsic evil is not helpful in terms of casting votes, precisely becuase it ignores the question of effectiveness of course of action. Labeling something intrinsically evil does not mean there are not prudential judgments involved in determining how to eradicate that evil. That a candidate agrees with me that abortion is immoral does not mean I agree with the candidate about how to address that immorality.
Still, that does not make the distinction irrelevent for voting purposes in that it at least helps establish a hierarchy of issues on which one will evaluate a candidate (which evaluation will include the candidate's means of addressing the intrincis evil) and has something to say about the strength with which one insists that the moral value be addressed in public policy debates.
Wednesday, October 6, 2004
Intrinsic Evil vs. Other Moral Issues
Tuesday, October 5, 2004
Intrinsic Evil: Help Me Out
In response to Steve’s post, “Some things matter more than others” - let’s take as a given that “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia” – or as some have put it, these are “intrinsic evils” – as compared with areas requiring some prudential judgment in their application (such as capital punishment and war).
It’s not crystal clear to me what this means for political life – and especially for the decision about how to cast one’s vote. To cite that abortion is an intrinsic evil, as if that then clinches the argument on how to vote, seems to skip a few steps – regarding the function of law and the formation of public policy.
In fact, it seems that the heart of voting in many ways is all about those issues which do require prudential judgment – and in choosing the person whose prudential judgment you trust more.
It’s also not clear to me that just because an issue requires some prudential judgment in its application it is therefore “less important” than other issues. For example, perhaps capital punishment is one of those areas – but it seems that the state’s execution of an innocent person, to take an extreme case, or on the basis of a system that is racially discriminatory, is not therefore “less important” – and certainly not less tragic and less disturbing than an abortion. In fact, if we consider how this example touches on the role and power of the government in ways that are more direct than the series of decisions which lead to an abortion, it could also be more disturbing. Or to take a more complex case (perhaps), I’m just not clear on how a mistaken application of the just war principles – e.g., failure to insure that war was truly a “last resort” – is any less important or less tragic than abortion.
I don’t mean to downplay the moral tragedy of abortion or the importance in political life of clearly identifying abortion as an intrinsic evil. However, translating this conviction and concern into a legal agenda and specific public policy requires a few additional steps – and these steps do seem to involve prudential judgment about what would be the most effective course of action to reduce abortion and increase respect for life in our society.
So other than insuring that we understand something is really bad, how does that fact that something is an intrinsic evil advance the political anlaysis?
These are really honest questions – does anyone know of a good analysis of how the moral category of “intrinsic evil” is connected with political judgments and voting in particular – that can answer some of these questions?
Amy
Public Religious Displays: America and France Compared
In this essay, Bishop Thomas Curry discusses the recent controversies surrounding the seal of the City of Los Angeles, drawing on the turmoil in France surrounding Muslim headscarves in schools.
These thoughts were, I thought, particularly interesting:
In America, government is mandated to stay within the bounds of its own specified secular role. As the Supreme Court has stated, it may not invade the realm of "intellect and spirit." For example, it may not sponsor prayers in public schools, but individuals or groups may engage in religious activity on public school property, just as other groups or clubs do. The government may not define what religious freedom is or what it is not, or what constitute religious values. Those are rights reserved to the people.France gave government power to separate Church and State. America excluded power over religion from government altogether, and left people free. Until judges and other commentators return to the American model of religious freedom, the present disarray in Church-State relations will continue.
Rick
Some Reflections on "Civil Religion"
This opinion piece contains one journalist's reflections on a recent journalists' conference in Los Angeles, called "Religion, Politics and Public Policy: From the White House to the School House." The author uses the new Cathedral of our Lady of the Angels as a starting point for reflections about "civil religion." Here's the conclusion:
But if churches are to be the place where "civil religion" is practiced -- an alternative that church-state separationists would prefer to religious observances on government property -- how inclusive can such celebrations be? It is one thing for a Christian cathedral to declare that it is a house of prayer for all people, but is it also a house where people who don't pray -- atheists and agnostics -- can comfortably gather to commemorate victims of terrorism or a former national leader? Ultimately it may be impossible to take the "religion" out of "civil religion."
Rick
More on the Cert Denial in Catholic Charities
Here's a bit more about the Court's decision not to review the California Supreme Court's decision in the "Catholic Charities" case.
The Court's refusal to grant cert. (probably) comes as no surprise. Still, the California decision touches on, and creates, a number of difficult and important problems. And, they are not going away.
Rick
Some Things Matter More than Others
Cardinal Ratzinger on voting decisions:
Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.
Christian Love in Politics
In response to the discussion about Mark's proposed “Seamless Garment Party,” I wanted to expand on Michael Scaperlanda’s point and Michael Perry’s doubts – I too wonder if the real challenge is not so much to come up with the perfect political platform – but rather with a process for 1) appreciating and encouraging the ways in which current platforms contribute to the common good – and 2) critiquing and challenging current platforms for the ways in which they do not…
It seems like political variety is built into the very dynamic of Catholic Social Thought – for example, some will be drawn to emphasize subsidiarity over solidarity; and others the reverse – but this is not necessarily a bad thing – in fact, perhaps it is in this very dynamic of exchange, of the capacity to listen to the other, and to appreciate how a diversity of viewpoints can enrich political discourse and problem-solving – that we can find the deepest hope for the renewal of political life.
Following up on thoughts about the Christian Democrats and other European models – it’s interesting to note that some of the very latest discussion in Europe is focused not on beefing up the Christian identity of one particular party, but rather on how a Christian spirit of love can increase understanding and animate collaboration for the common good between politicians and citizens of different political parties.
For example, this past May several of the Catholic Ecclesial Movements gathered in Stuttgart, Germany with their ecumenical counterparts to showcase a “Europe of the Spirit.” In the address, “A United Europe for a United World,” Focolare founder Chiara Lubich described the modus operandi for politicians animated by a spirit of Christian love:
“The choice to become politically active is an act of love by which [politicians] respond to a personal calling, or they provide an answer to a social need, to a problem in their city, to the sufferings of the people, to the needs of their times. Believers discern that it is God Himself who calls them; those with non-religious convictions respond to a human need that awakens their conscience: in both cases, they are motivated by love. They become aware of the fact the root of politics is service, love; this leads to understanding that political opponents too might have made their choices out of love. Consequently, they must respect them – indeed, the politicians of unity are also interested in bringing their adversaries’ good projects to fruition. In fact, if such projects answer an authentic need, they are an integral part of that common good which can only be built together. Furthermore, these politicians are not satisfied with loving on their own; they seek to lead others to love, allies or adversaries, because politics is relationship; it is shared projects.”
Her next point emphasizes Vince’s point about the international dimensions built into Church teaching and perspectives:
“A further expression of fraternity in politics is to love the country of others as we love our own. In fact, humanity’s greatest dignity would be to no longer feel that it is a collection of peoples living side by side and frequently in conflict with one another, but rather, through mutual love, it is a single people enriched by one another’s diversity in unity, safeguarding each one’s identity.”
This – I think – sets out the real challenge for the renewal of political life. (I touch on this a bit in my Spirituality of Communion piece as well).
Amy
Monday, October 4, 2004
Seamless Garment Party
I wanted to agree with both Mark and Michael about the fundamental failings of American political parties, and the particular failings of the Republican Party as it relates to Catholic social teaching. I don't know why more American Catholics don't see how many key Republican positions are in direct conflict with Catholic teaching. I'll offer an additional one that has not yet been mentioned. The Bush campaign is going out of it's way to label Kerry as an "internationalist" who would subject American foreign policy to a "global test." Although the "global test" attack is merely a simplistic distortion of Kerry's comments in the last debate, it would be a good idea for Catholics to think more cogently about the implications of Republican unilateralism and the party's hearty support of pre-emptive war. These positions fly in the face of Catholic teaching. The Catholic Church is extremely internationalist, and Catholic social teaching rejects isolationist models of nationalism and unilateral exertions of force in defense of notions of national sovereignty that have long been discredited by the unrelenting violence and abuse of human rights that marked most of the 20th century.
The Republicans champion an "America first" economic and foreign policy that views war as a legitimate tool in the effort to remake the globe in America's image. They also panders to a vulgar jingoism and nativism that has a long and ugly history in American culture (if you don't believe me, spend an evening watching the Fox News Channel). Sure, a lot of people will suffer and die in the short term as a result of these policies, but in the long run, those foreigners will be better off (and the world will be much more receptive to American cultural and economic expansion). This is simply an imperial agenda in the 21st century clothing of "democracy and freedom." Catholics should view it with the jaundiced eye it deserves.
Vince
Christian Democracy
I wonder if those developing the SGP meme would be willing to contrast their vision of the good political party with the well-established European models variously known as Christian Democracy, Christian Demcratic parties, and Catholic Socialism?
Law-related essays in last month's First Things
Last month's issue of First Things is now available online and there are a couple of law-related items therein to which I would particularly draw the attention of our readers:
- Paul Carrese's thoughtful and somewhat sympathetic critique of Randy Barnett's book Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty. Longtime readers of my personal blog* will not be surprised to learn that I share Carrese's view that Barnett's "bold new constitutional theory ... reinforces what our bold courts have been doing for decades." Yet, one must also concur with Carrese that Restoring the Lost Constitution deserves praise "because it emphasizes the right questions and issues, and because it fundamentally respects the rule of law."
- Jay Budziszewski's piece on capital punishment, which is in large measure a reply to an earlier First Things article by Avery Cardinal Dulles. Taken together, these two essays shed considerable and invaluable light on the state of the debate over capital punishment within the Catholic Church.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
