Regarding Fred Thompson's lobbying work on behalf of abortion rights, another MoJ reader observes:
It seems to me that one cannot confidently equate the position advanced by a lawyer who zealously represents his client's interests and the public policy position such a lawyer might advance if elected to a legislative or executive office. In Senator Thompson's case, a more reliable indicator of how he is likely to execute his office if elected president is his record on abortion legislation while serving in the senate.
On a more theoretical level, would your query extend equally to a criminal defense lawyer who represents one accused of murder? How about a lawyer who represents a man seeking a civil divorce from his wife so that he might wed the woman with whom he had carried on an affair? Can the first lawyer, without contradiction, claim that he abhors murder and believes that those who commit it deserve to be punished by the state? Can the second lawyer justifiably claim that he believes in the sanctity of marriage? Perhaps, however, you believe that a faithful Catholic cannot be a criminal defense or divorce lawyer. Surely you wouldn't contend that a Catholic lawyer may only defend someone he is confident did not commit the crime of which he is accused or may only represent someone seeking a divorce whom he is confident will not remarry, lest he materially cooperate in the commission of sin?
The Boston Globe made a similar point about Thompson, reporting that Christian conservatives have "defended any work [Thompson] may have done as merely a lawyer working for a client."
First, let me be clear that I don't think a Catholic is morally precluded from voting for Thompson. As someone who has voted for only one pro-life presidential candidate (and that was mainly because, as a senior in high school, I was reacting to the photo of Dukakis in a tank), far be it from me to throw stones. There might be great reasons to vote for Thompson, his magnificent voice being near the top of the list.
But I resist any suggestion that we can look past the causes a lawyer chooses to take on. I agree that a position advanced by a lawyer's client is not the same as the policy position advanced by an elected official. And I would generally not find fault in a criminal defense lawyer who represents a guilty client. There are significant structural values furthered in those representations. But on the civil side -- especially on the lobbying side -- the structural values are less significant, and the market of lawyers is much more robust, at least for clients who can pay. As I've argued elsewhere,
When lawyers within a functioning marketplace introduce extralegal norms into the advice they give clients or as the basis for declining a representation, they do not close down the divergent paths by which the common good is realized. In fact, lawyers who bring conscience to bear on their professional identities can help expand and enrich the common good by challenging the presumptions of the governing legal paradigm, whether by critically engaging the substance of the positive law or the objectives that the client wishes to pursue through the positive law.
Granted, I still struggle with the implications of Pope John Paul II's statement that Catholic lawyers "must always decline the use of their profession for ends that are counter to justice, like divorce." At the very least, though, it's a clear signal that lawyers are accountable for the causes to which they devote their time and talents. That does not mean that lawyers should only represent "good" clients; often the value of the work derives from the overarching good made possible by the lawyer fulfilling his responsibilities in our system of justice. Approached by an abortion rights advocacy organization that could afford any number of high-priced lobbyists, I'm not sure what overarching good comes from accepting the representation. Again, this does not mean that Catholics should not vote for Thompson; but it has to be part of the inquiry if we want to take the moral dimension of lawyering seriously.
Marquette law student Daniel Suhr echoes Rick's misgivings about Casey Khan's moral analysis of voting for Fred Thompson:
First, let's not be too quick to judge what exactly Senator Thompson did or did not do while a lobbyist. As [yesterday's] Boston Globe points out, many leaders on the Religious Right have acknowledged the complexities of this particular question. And let's remember that Thompson's record on life issues while in the US Senate was stellar.
Second, there can be a proportionate reason in a primary - electability. As we all learned in the 2004 Pennsylvania US Senate primary between Senator Specter and Congressman Toomey, many reasoned, conservative Catholics like Senator Santorum believed that a candidate's chances of winning constituted a proportionate reason to support a pro-choice candidate. Many pundits and analysts say, with good reason, that Senator Thompson may be the GOP's best chance at holding on to the White House in 2008.
Third, being wholeheartedly against the War in Iraq is not a proportionate reason for being pro-choice. As Archbishop Myers reminded us in the run up to the 2004 election, the Pope did not bind the conscience of Catholics to oppose the War in Iraq - he merely expressed his own prudential judgement on the question. Moreover, as the Archbishop points out, we must remember what we are balancing here - the lives of 1.3 million unborn children in America every year. Virtually no other modern policy issue - not taxes, welfare benefits, minimum wage, farm subsidies, the war - compares on that scale.
As a primary voter, Casey is entitled to go for idealism. But Ron Paul is a non-starter as a serious candidate for president. I, for one, am looking for a candidate who is both ideologically compatible and electable. Senator Thompson, among other Republicans, fits that bill.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
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.
Does news of Fred Thompson's lobbying work on behalf of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (in which he reportedly tried to lift federal restraints on abortion counseling) mean that pro-life Catholics should think twice before voting for him? I'm not equating his lobbying work with the policy positions of the leading Democratic candidates, but his decision to accept that client raises questions about his dedication to the pro-life cause, doesn't it?
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
I consistently try to make the point with friends that traditional Christianity's opposition to same-sex marriage and parenting cannot be equated with homophobia, though I admit that the articulation of that opposition often bears a striking resemblance to homophobia. If Christians are to maintain the position that the children of same-sex parents are worse off than the children of opposite-sex parents, they will have to be careful to ensure that the differences are not due, at least in part, to the social hostility toward those families to which Christians are prone to contribute. More particularly, what justification does the Gospel provide for Christian churches to picket against a group of children on vacation with their gay parents?
Howard Friedman has a helpful round-up of the religion-related answers given by the candidates at last night's Democratic presidential debate, including Senator Obama's reassurance that he does not think that "people of any faith background should be prohibited from debating in the public square." I trust that this is not the extent of his outreach to religious voters.
