Way at the top of my list of things to be grateful for this Thanksgiving is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops 2007 Statement on political participation, Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship
First, it is amazing that in the wake of the polarization that emerged during the 2004 election, that the bishops were able to issue the document with almost unanimous (97.8%) approval. This tremendous show of unity will go a long way, I believe, toward healing the divisions that had so marred our country and our Church during the last presidential campaign season.
Second, the document does a terrific job working through how the moral theology category of “intrinsic evil” should operate in how we make practical judgments in the political arena. It gives a clear definition: “There are some things we must never do, as individuals or as a society, because they are always incompatible with love of God and neighbor. Such actions are so deeply flawed that they are always opposed to the authentic good of persons. These are called ‘intrinsically evil’ actions. They must always be rejected and opposed and must never be condoned.”
Then, in sharp contrast with the Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics short list of “non-negotiable” issues (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem-cell research, human cloning and homosexual marriage) the bishops include in their examples: the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia; direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos; as well as other direct assaults on human life and violations of human dignity, “such as genocide, torture, racism, and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror or war.”
In a beautiful passage, it highlights how Catholic social teaching is not just about the “no” but must also embrace the constructive “yes”—a positive commitment to rolling up our sleeves to work for the “good that we must do.” “Opposition to intrinsically evil acts that undercut the dignity of the human person should also open our eyes to the good we must do, that is, to our positive duty to contribute to the common good and to act in solidarity with those in need.” In fact, the moral obligation to meet basic needs for food, shelter, health care, education and meaningful work, is also “universally binding on our consciences.” The fact that the political choices about how to best meet these challenges are matters for principled debate “does not make them optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore Church teaching on these important issues.”
Mark, your seamless garment platform has arrived, and the beautiful bow on the package it its decisive call to unity, recognizing that Catholics may express their faith commitment in the social sphere in a variety of ways. As we work on a variety of issues, searching for political and social remedies to the problems of abortion, war, poverty or a host of other threats to human life and dignity, “we need to support one another as our community of faith defends human life and dignity wherever it is threatened. We are not factions, but one family of faith fulfilling the mission of Jesus Christ.”
In voting, “It is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our conscience.” It is also important to note that “the direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life from the moment of conception until natural death is always wrong and is not just one issue among many.”
But again, in sharp contrast to the Voter’s Guide for Serious Catholics, that’s not the end of the story. In fact, the bishops clarify that a candidate’s support for intrinsically evil policies is not the only issue that Catholics should consider in deciding how to vote. “A voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.” In fact, “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.”
How about that dilemma that emerged for many in pews in anguish over whether it was a sin to vote for a candidate who supports intrinsically evil policies? The bishops clarified that the key is the voter’s intent. “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil.” Further, even when all candidates hold a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, options include “the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate,” or, after careful deliberation, voting “for the candidate deemed less likely to advance such a morally flawed position and more likely to pursue other authentic human goods.”
Thank you, USCCB, for what I believe is a clear, courageous, extraordinarily helpful reference point for profound reflection on the gifts that Catholics can bring to our political life and the public square. I see just a couple of tiny knits in the analysis (you all may have found others), but I think those can be worked through. I’ll continue chewing on those over Thanksgiving and work them out in a future blog.
Other thoughts? Amy
Monday, November 19, 2007
Given the recent posts about the death penalty and deterrence, MOJ readers might want to check out this essay by Stuart Taylor. A bit:
[I] suspect that the abolitionist justices may have been right in their perception that the death penalty is in tension with the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." . . .
They were wrong, however, to take this perception as a mandate to abolish the death penalty, for at least three reasons.
First, the recent history sketched previously shows that the trend toward less enthusiasm for executions is not linear, and that well-intentioned judicial efforts to speed up the evolution process can backfire.
Second, judicial abolition of the death penalty would usurp powers assigned by the Constitution to the legislative and executive branches. In this sense, Furman had less to do with the progress of a maturing society than with what Justice William Brennan, when breaking in new law clerks, introduced semi-facetiously as "the rule of five."
"You got five votes," he would explain with mock professorial gravity, "you can do anything you want." So you can, for a while. But in the long run, societies mature better when they do it the old-fashioned way, without the help of judicial fiats.
Third, while the justices know a lot about the social costs of the death penalty, they know very little about whether and to what extent these costs may be offset by the very considerable benefit of saving innocent lives. . . .
[A]t this point most of us can only speculate about which side has the better of the inherently conjectural arguments about deterrence. The same is true of the justices. And speculation is not a firm foundation on which to build constitutional law.
I am definitely with Taylor on the first two points. As for the third -- As I have indicated before, it seems to me that the question whether the death penalty deters matters, really, only once we've identified a class of cases in which it is, or could be, morally permissible. It does not seem to me that deterrence helps us to identify this class of cases as an initial matter. (Whether the death penalty's deterrent effect, or lack thereof, of relevant to the constitutional question whether its use violates the Eighth Amendment is, I assume, a different matter.)
UPDATE: Here's a death-penalty-and-deterrence post by Jack Balkin. I have some thoughts in the comments box.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
This, from MOJ-friend Gerry Whyte:
MSN.com
Nov. 18, 2007
Dolly creator reveals clone rethink
The man who created Dolly the sheep is abandoning cloning in favour of a new
technique which produces stem cells without an embryo, it is reported.
Professor Ian Wilmut has decided that the method he pioneered 10 years ago no
longer offers the best way to grow a patient's own cells and tissues in a bid to
treat a range of medical conditions.
The Daily Telegraph newspaper reports that instead, he will switch to a
revolutionary and less controversial technique pioneered in Japan, in which
cells have been developed from fragments of skin.
Prof Wilmut, of Edinburgh University, said the new technique was "easier to
accept socially" than the therapeutic cloning process he helped pioneer,
according to the paper.
The new method does not require the use of human embryos, negating an ethical
concern cited by the religious right and others opposed to stem cell
research.
The Telegraph quotes Prof Wilmut as saying: "I decided a few weeks ago not to
pursue nuclear transfer (the method by which Dolly was cloned)."
He will no longer pursue a licence to clone human embryos, which he was
awarded just two years ago, the newspaper says.
The news will come as a blow to scientists who believe that the use of
embryos to create stem cells is the best way to develop treatments for serious
medical conditions such as stroke, heart disease and Parkinson's disease.
Prof Wilmut and his team captured world headlines in 1997 when they unveiled
Dolly, a sheep cloned from an adult cell.
But since then, the scientific community has had to counter criticism from
pro-life campaigners and religious groups. US president George Bush has
forbidden the spending of public money on such research.
