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
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Here's the text marked as issued by the USCCB on 11/14/07 (it looks like just the written text, which I imagine will be formatted for print shortly) http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Susan, picking up on your exchange with Sr. Margaret John on self-interest, folks might find food for thought on this in Dan Finn’s recent book, The Moral Ecology of Markets. I think it’s a terrific resource for all of us who are working with the economic implications of CST.
On page 56, Finn describes the distinction between psychological egoism (“all human action is inevitably egoistic, oriented toward the benefit of the actor . . . ‘Each of us is always seeking his own greatest good, whether this is conceived as pleasure, happiness, knowledge, power, self-realization…’”); and ethical egoism (the moral argument that “an individual’s one and only basic obligation is to promote for himself the greatest possible balance of good over evil.”). He then outlines a number of problems with psychological egoism, including the underlying tautology— “If every conceivable human action can be explained by self-interest, then self-interest explains nothing.” (57); the distortions entailed in a description of the world “that cannot distinguish saint from sinner, martyr from murderer, altruism from selfishness” (57); and the challenges that it poses for common understanding—most people have trouble absorbing that “technical economic notion of self-interest can include concerns for others.” (57). Finn concludes: “Leading a moral life is difficult and at various times requires the subordination of one’s interest to those of others.” (57)
Later he discusses two examples: first, presented with the choice of whether to buy dented cans of beans, leaving the good cans for other customers, he notes: “the self-interested thing to do is to buy undented cans, while the neighborly thing to do is to buy the dented cans.” (109). But in a context where customer complaints may generate systematic improvement in production or delivery, refusing to buy the dented might actually be a service to the common good (or at least efficiency): “Self interest need not result in harmful effects for others. It can … actually lead to a more careful husbandry of the goods of the Earth.” (111). In contrast, faced with the dilemma of whether to buy a cheaper rug made by child slave-labor, one may not have the same hope for systematic change. The difference between the two examples “is in the institutional framework within which these two chains of events occur.” (112). Thus it is futile to look for “a simple rule based on the intention of the actor to determine whether narrowly self-interested action is good or bad.” (113).
By way of probing the insights of Sr. Margaret John, here’s my question for Finn: Could this tangle all boil down to a natural law argument about teleological nature of human beings? Is the reason that most people have trouble absorbing a notion of self-interest that includes others because of a widespread philosophical foundation of individualism? If that is the case, is that a reason not to push the boundaries on this argument? If a more relational vision of the self is at the foundation of the analysis, might that shift a sense of when one’s interests are “subordinated”? Could a relational understanding of the self run parallel to how interest over time (long range interest) adds complexity to the analysis? Might it actually be more neighborly to refuse to buy dented cans, communicate one’s concern, and push for a systematic change in packing procedures? Is the bean example in tension with the list of concerns about psychological and ethics egoism? Might a more robust image of the relational self (eg, the self not essentially in tension with others) make the moral life less “difficult”?
Amy
Friday, September 7, 2007
My short piece “Beyond Work-Life Balance” is has just been published in the Fall 2007 issue of CHURCH Magazine. It argues that “balance” imagery can actually feed into what Gaudium et Spes termed “among the more serious errors of our age”—the “split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives.” (n.43), and gives a few examples of how a more integrative spirituality might play out in the context of large law firm practice. All part of a larger project—and life’s work!—to explore the spiritual resources which might help expand the horizons of how lawyers think about time and the role of work in their lives, also developed in Part-Time Paradox).
Church Magazine, a quarterly on pastoral theology and ministry, is a terrific resource. It is put out by the National Pastoral Life Center, whose projects also include the Catholic Common Ground Initiative and the Social Action Roundtable.
Amy
