In my view, Casey Khan's arguments about Fred Thompson, Ron Paul, and cooperating with evil are not very persuasive. (Full disclosure: I have donated money to the Thompson exploratory effort and intend, at present, to support him if he runs.) For starters, although I also like the views, and respect the persons, of Sam Brownback and Mike Huckabee, neither will ever, ever be the President, and so it strikes me as a bit close to empty moral preening to insist that pro-life Catholics need to support them in the primaries to avoid culpable cooperation with evil. They are as likely to be the President -- indeed, they are as likely to be the Republican nominee -- as, say, Cardinal George or Dorothy Day.
Like Rob, I was disappointed by the news that Thompson lobbied, more than 15 years ago, for a few hours, on behalf of an abortion-rights group -- one of his large law firm's clients -- trying to lift the so-called "gag rule." I would have -- I hope -- refused to do this work, and I wish Thompson had refused. And, I was also disappointed by his organization's initial not-straightforward response to the news. (Yuval Levin has a good post about the issue, here.) Still, it seems to me that (a) there is no "seamless garment" candidate and so, all things considered, the common good and religious freedom are better served by an executive branch staffed by a Republican administration, and by judges nominated by a Republican president, than by the Administration of any of the three or four plausible Democratic candidates (as I have always said on this blog, I understand and believe that pro-life, reasonable, faithful Catholics -- and also Tom Berg! -- can and do disagree about this), (b) at present, the only plausible Republican candidates are Romney, McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson, (c) Thompson's voting record, during the years he spent in the Senate -- as opposed to the few hours he billed lobbying to lift the gag-rule -- is, like Sen. McCain's, quite good on abortion and stem-cell research.
Khan's cooperation-with-evil argument seems to assume that a voter needs to worry about whether a vote for Thompson is culpable cooperation with Thompson's (let's assume) immoral act of lobbying to lift the gag-rule. But, it seems to me, this is not at all the question. Thompson is not running as the "lift the gag rule" candidate; quite the contrary. When it comes to abortion, voting for Thompson (or McCain, or Romney) would be voting for an Administration that would support reasonable regulations of abortion and nominate judges more likely to uphold reasonable regulations of abortion.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
I have followed some of the earlier MOJ discussion on the Pope’s recently published book, Jesus of Nazareth. I am reading the same volume now, although in Italian—so my progress is slow. I am not sure I have any answers for the questions that Michael Scaperlanda has posed, but I would like to suggest an insight that can help with how this work of the Pope assists the CLT project. Obviously the Pope is addressing a type of authority: Biblical. But he is putting it in the context of another authority: the Magisterium. As a Catholic, he is much affected by these sources of authority, which he (and I) consider good. But as a German, he was much affected by another authority: that of the totalitarian state. And in this context, he witnessed the dangers of a godless authority that was subjective and based on the whim of the totalitarian state. I have read the Pope’s short autobiography, Milestones: Memoirs 1927-1977. From this book, I have been able to make some relevant connections between Joseph Ratzinger the Catholic, the theologian, and the pastor and the proper role of authority in Christian life. As Rick Garnett says, check it out (i.e., Milestones). You may find that having Milestones as a background and point of reference will place Jesus of Nazareth in a more accessible context that has a bearing on applying Pope Benedict’s new book to our CLT efforts. RJA sj
Regarding my post on Fred Thompson, MoJ reader Casey Khan comments:
Thompson's action of lobbying for lifting restraints on abortion counseling is an act of formal cooperation with evil. Thompson essentially made the the act of pro-abortion counseling his own. Thompson is in a state of manifest grave sin (add Romney and Giuliani to the list for similar reasons).
The question for the voter is would a vote for Thompson constitute cooperation with evil. If one votes for Thompson based on his pro-abortion views or actions would engage in formal cooperation with evil which is never justified. However, one can materially cooperate with evil if there is some other proportionate reason justifying it. . . . The difficulty here is what constitutes a proportionate reason. . . .
The bigger problem with Thompson is we don't know what, if anything Thompson really stands for. So I can't figure out what proportionate reason a Catholic should be voting for Thompson, especially during the primary elections. There may be a proportionate reason in picking the lesser of two evils in the national election against Hillary Clinton, but at this early stage, that argument doesn't fly.
I think Catholics have a number of other options which I think present potential proportionate reasons if the candidate is a pro-abort. These would fall on the Democratic side with the anti-war candidates of Kuchinick and Gravel. If the Catholic views the Iraq war as unjustified and destructive of the common good in the Middle East at our own government's hands, voting for a politician which the voter thinks will bring about a just resolution to this pressing matter may present a proportionate reason. Of course, on the Republican side there are choices that one could pick which does not in anyway cooperate with the evil of abortion. These candidates are naturally in the lower tier (big media is a part of the culture of death). Huckabee, Brownback, and Paul are three notable second tier candidates which Catholics could get behind. I think the Catholic who thinks that both abortion (per se) and the Iraq war (in this particular situation) are unjustified, does not have to materially cooperate with evil in either instance and strain to find proportionate justifications in voting for a presidential candidate. As such, I'm backing Ron Paul. The primary stage is the time for idealism, particularly for the Catholic who wants to see an end to the culture of death.
