Moral Theology and the 2008 Election

[Davidnic]

Almost every thread in OBOB about the election has boiled down to issues of moral theology. Although the words are not always used the threads center around:

Proportionalism
Legalism
Double Effect Reasoning
Intrinsic evil
Intended vs Foreseen consequences
Degrees of Cooperation

So I thought it might be useful to have a thread that talked about the election in direct terms of moral theology.

I though we could start with the limits of proportionate reasoning in Catholic thought? Proportionalism has both supporters and detractors in Catholic moral theology. Some take it too far (according to the Bishops) and others attribute ideas to it that are not supported by it's theories (say it's supporters) It is intimately tied with the concept of intrinsic evil. And both concepts: proportionate reason and intrinsic evil can be seen in the Bishops guidance on voting.

Who's game?

 

[geocajun]

Can I start with a question on proportianate reason?

Why don't our bishops consider endorsing McCain to be a proportionate reason to losing their non-for-profit status? It would seem to be that if voting for McCain meant ending abortion, our Bishops would have no choice first of all, and second of all wouldn't be concerned with the loss of tax money - is tax exemption proportionate to the evil of abortion? Does voting for McCain not mean ending abortion?

 

[Davidnic]

Can I start with a question on proportianate reason?

Why don't our bishops consider endorsing McCain to be a proportionate reason to losing their non-for-profit status? It would seem to be that if voting for McCain meant ending abortion, our Bishops would have no choice first of all, and second of all wouldn't be concerned with the loss of tax money - is tax exemption proportionate to the evil of abortion? Does voting for McCain not mean ending abortion?

Not really a moral issue in proportionate reason.

But, have I missed an official endorsement? Or are you saying that the Bishops are skewed. And that they have done all but an official endorsement. I would actually argue against that.

Their reasoning, for the most part, is pretty even. In many cases they are correcting what they see as a misconception in the logic of what is proportionate reason and then that is taken by the right to be an endorsement. But the Bishops have many statements that honestly call into question the ability to vote for either.

What I have noticed lately is politicians, like Pelosi for example, making statements that can not go unchallenged by the bishops. And this draws attention away from other issues that the bishops have made statements about concerning social justice, war, immigration and poverty.

Now, are any of these "proportionate reasons" to vote one way as opposed to the other. That depends.

The problem is that proportionalism...in the extreme form and not the one allowed by the Church, denies the existence of intrinsic evils or compromises their value in discernment. When that happen it needs to be corrected by the bishops. And that has been happening.

 

[Annolennar]

This sounds like an interesting thread; philosophy is a much more interesting topic to me than politics! I hope I won't forget about it, I'm bad about that.

/subscribed

 

[geocajun]

Not really a moral issue in proportionate reason.

But, have I missed an official endorsement? Or are you saying that the Bishops are skewed. And that they have done all but an official endorsement. I would actually argue against that.

Their reasoning, for the most part, is pretty even. In many cases they are correcting what they see as a misconception in the logic of what is proportionate reason and then that is taken by the right to be an endorsement. But the Bishops have many statements that honestly call into question the ability to vote for either.

What I have noticed lately is politicians, like Pelosi for example, making statements that can not go unchallenged by the bishops. And this draws attention away from other issues that the bishops have made statements about concerning social justice, war, immigration and poverty.

Now, are any of these "proportionate reasons" to vote one way as opposed to the other. That depends.

The problem is that proportionalism...in the extreme form and not the one allowed by the Church, denies the existence of intrinsic evils or compromises their value in discernment. When that happen it needs to be corrected by the bishops. And that has been happening.

David,
what I'm saying is that if catholics have no choice but to vote for McCain because a vote for McCain is a vote against a abortion - if the logic is so clear, then by the same logic our own bishops would need to evaluate the proportionate reason for not giving him a full and formal endorsement.
Obviously the issue isn't so cut and dry, and I do agree with you that many bishops are making statements that are more tempered while some are clearly pushing for republican votes.

 

[Davidnic]

David,
what I'm saying is that if catholics have no choice but to vote for McCain because a vote for McCain is a vote against a abortion - if the logic is so clear, then by the same logic our own bishops would need to evaluate the proportionate reason for not giving him a full and formal endorsement.
Obviously the issue isn't so cut and dry, and I do agree with you that many bishops are making statements that are more tempered while some are clearly pushing for republican votes.

Ahh. I see. Yes, if a candidate came along who was someone who met all the factors that made a vote for them a de facto moral necessity then not endorsing them would have proportionate concerns.

I think many of the Bishops are very worried that abortion is being lost as an important issue.

But here is an interesting article on this topic: link

Then there is this letter to the editor from the NY times by two bishops: link as well as the original article it refers to.

 

[Davidnic]

One of the things is that a workable proportionate reason gets into very sketchy areas if both candidates support intrinsic evils. At that point if someone opts to vote for either one then they are coming down to the formation of conscience. And although arguments can be made on both ends...if two candidates support intrinsic evils it is very dicey to start weighing them like they can be counterbalanced.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

I think it is really important to figure out what proportionate reason is. On the one hand we have abortion-which kills what? how many babies a year --- I don't really know the current popular statistic--but a lot.

So if a person is going to be voting for a candidate who supports abortion (but not specifically because of his or her position on abortion)- there needs to be a reason proportionate with the deaths however many people a year a killed through abortion, in order to justify that vote.

Same deal with embryonic stem cell research- or any other intrinsic evil. How many lives and what impact does in have? And then does the reason I am voting for that person impact as many lives in the same fundamental way as does that intrinsic evil?

For example a vote for Obama could be allowable if a person genuinely believes that McCain/Palin puts us in reasonable threat of nuclear war, or that close to the same numbers of people will die because there is no national healthcare, etc. A vote for McCain could be allowed if a person believes that he will actually do something to limit abortion access in a large scale way, since that would be comprable to lives taken through allowing embryonic stem cell research to go forward.

Do I have that right there David?? Or close?

 

[benedictaoo]

Same deal with embryonic stem cell research- or any other intrinsic evil. How many lives and what impact does in have?

This is what confuses me, in my mind, they are already dead and supporting research is not what killed them... so how is a politician supporting the murder, which is the evil when they support no further embryos just the ones that are frozen in time?

I'm I even making sense?

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

No- the babies are alive-they need only a womb to grow. They have souls. They are not dead. (The embryos are frozen--but they are still viable-they need only the right environment, and they will grow.) In order to do research on these babies- they need to be directly killed.

The Catholic Church holds embryonic stem cell research as an intrinsic evil-because there is the direct killing of an unborn baby for the purpose of doing research. Remember that we bellieve that the soul is endowed at the moment of conception.

Maybe Davidnic can explain it better than me....

 

[benedictaoo]

oooh that ain't good. But isn't artificial insemination also immoral? So by the, can't use bad to achieve good rule, that would not be an option, right?

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Well I think they way the morality of it all goes is the same as adoption in general. I said in the other thread- it gets complicated!! But here, a husband and wife who are adopting a "snowflake" aren't removing the unitive from the procreative aspect of their sex. Rather a woman is providing a safe haven for a baby who would otherwise be killed, and will adopt that baby just as they would a baby already born. Does that help??

 

[benedictaoo]

Yeah it does and it sounds as if the Church has had to choose a lesser evil as well becuase of whoever's responsible, may God have mercy on that one or ones.

So voting they be adopted out would be the "lesser evil"?

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

hmmmm...I don't think it's evil ecatly at all. I don't think it's the insemination which is sinful--but rather the removal of the unitive and creative aspect of sex. Putting a husband's sperm inside his wife's body isn't sinful--but doing that not in the context of sex within marriage is. (LOL! I am getting sleepy and this might not make sense).

Maybe you are not asking the question you mean to be asking--which is about in vitro fertilization?? But again--putting babies inside a mother's uterus isn't morally bad--rather it's the removal of the unitve and creative aspects. You have to pinpoint what the action is, and figure out it's moral quality.

Where I think it get's kind of murky is why this adoption is okay, but surrogacy is not okay--but it has to do with the idea of the another person being involved between husband and wife. So I guess, since the baby is unwanted--a husband and wife adopting these babies, become the babies parents.

The deal with these IVF babies is that the evil is already done--the babies have been conceived outside of the context of properly expressed marital sex. Just like say the conception of a child to an unwed mother. Giving the baby up for adoption isn't sinful--the child adopting the baby isn't commiting sin, even though the child became theirs outside of the context of their marital sexual lives.

 

[geocajun]

I think it is really important to figure out what proportionate reason is. On the one hand we have abortion-which kills what? how many babies a year --- I don't really know the current popular statistic--but a lot.

So if a person is going to be voting for a candidate who supports abortion (but not specifically because of his or her position on abortion)- there needs to be a reason proportionate with the deaths however many people a year a killed through abortion, in order to justify that vote.

Same deal with embryonic stem cell research- or any other intrinsic evil. How many lives and what impact does in have? And then does the reason I am voting for that person impact as many lives in the same fundamental way as does that intrinsic evil?

For example a vote for Obama could be allowable if a person genuinely believes that McCain/Palin puts us in reasonable threat of nuclear war, or that close to the same numbers of people will die because there is no national healthcare, etc. A vote for McCain could be allowed if a person believes that he will actually do something to limit abortion access in a large scale way, since that would be comprable to lives taken through allowing embryonic stem cell research to go forward.

Do I have that right there David?? Or close?

I don't think its that cut and dry - for example, Bush was really pro-life - I do believe he cares about abortion and wants to stop it. Yet Bush, with the executive branch, both houses, the judiciary, and the majority of governors in his parties pocket, could not stop abortion.
Now we have McCain whose statements and actions on abortion have not convinced me the guy is pro-life at all, but rather pro-federalist. He thinks Roe V Wade was wrong only in as much as it hurt states rights. He may personally think abortion is wrong (which I don't think he does even though he says so) but that isn't reflected in his policies anywhere. Additionally he raises concern with stem cell research because it demonstrates that he isn't convinced in the life of the embryo.

The reason I mention all of this is that in order to have a meaningful discussion about proportionate reasons, one has to make what I consider a huge and unreasonable assumption - that McCain will actually do something to end abortion. It's a big assumption all the way from McCain actually appointing a pro-life judge, to judges like Alito actually voting to overturn it when they have said they would be hesitant to do so in the past. There are literally stacks upon stacks of assumptions one has to make to conclude that electing McCain is a vote against abortion.
Then even if we make all of those assumptions, all that has been accomplished is the states now have the right to make abortion legal or illegal if they choose. So now begins the other 50 individual fights, which a reasonable person knows will never result in abortion being stopped in all of the states, and therefore whatever states are left will get all of the abortion business - net result, no reduction in abortion, and possibly adult womens lives at risk due to back alley abortions. Finally we have to assume that all of the research showing laws against abortion are ineffective means to stop abortion are wrong. That is a lot of assuming.

On the other hand, Obama who is unabashedly pro-choice (though not the extreme folks make him out to be and any research on it will reveal that) really can't do more harm on the subject than is done already - our laws protect abortion at any point in the pregnancy and allow anyone to get one. Anyone woman anywhere can get an abortion anytime in our country. We've tried voting pro-life polititions are its gotten us no where.
Obama does have some items in his platform that I believe will reduce abortion. I don't believe its possible for Obama to increase abortion, but his plans that directly help the poor will reduce it. I also believe those in the "pro-life" community that argue against this point are doing themselves and the cause serious harm.

My conclusion here is that we can't evaluate proportionate reasons on the matter of abortion because in either case there will be no end to abortion - we have to make major assumptions about McCain to think otherwise, and then continue those assumptions within each state, and then ignore all of the research showing laws on abortion do not work to stop abortion.

 

[benedictaoo]

hmmmm...I don't think it's evil ecatly at all. I don't think it's the insemination which is sinful--but rather the removal of the unitive and creative aspect of sex. Putting a husband's sperm inside his wife's body isn't sinful--but doing that not in the context of sex within marriage is. (LOL! I am getting sleepy and this might not make sense).

Maybe you are not asking the question you mean to be asking--which is about in vitro fertilization?? But again--putting babies inside a mother's uterus isn't morally bad--rather it's the removal of the unitve and creative aspects. You have to pinpoint what the action is, and figure out it's moral quality.

Where I think it get's kind of murky is why this adoption is okay, but surrogacy is not okay--but it has to do with the idea of the another person being involved between husband and wife. So I guess, since the baby is unwanted--a husband and wife adopting these babies, become the babies parents.

The deal with these IVF babies is that the evil is already done--the babies have been conceived outside of the context of properly expressed marital sex. Just like say the conception of a child to an unwed mother. Giving the baby up for adoption isn't sinful--the child adopting the baby isn't commiting sin, even though the child became theirs outside of the context of their marital sexual lives.

I get it... I think the Church is trying to do the best with the evil done. There is no ideal solution to this other then letting ppl adopt.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

See- the reasearch I've done on Obama points toward radical, almost militant, completely unrestricted abortion support or support for viable babies born unintentionally. (Though I don't think he is very leftist in the rest of his platform). FOCA is nightmarish, and has the possibility of undoing all the restrictions which have been voted by the will of the people from state to state. It depends on what research you look at to quantify the results of those restriction- in Mississipi, for example, restrctions have driven nearly all abortion providers out of business- and a majority of the women are too poor to seek abortions in surrounding states. (Which then says to me that we bear a rsponsibility to serve those mothers and babies in a substanative way) Now-I don't think it's realistic that the bill would pass with the language , as is...but Obama supports it with the language as is. Codifying abortion into law is a real setback towards the goal of legally limiting abortion availability. I think a complex, wholisitc approach is the right one when it comes to abortion- but leaving it legal forever doesn't seem like a tenable position to me-at least not if we are convinced that it is, in fact, murder.

I dunno- I try to look at what will the country be like 4 years from now? If Obama's self proclaimed first priority in office is to pass FOCA, 4 years from now could have us even farther away from righting the wrong of abortion and with steps which are very difficult to undo. However, with McCain in office for 4 years- we could be at or on the verge of war (possibly with a nuclear power)and without firm support of our allies. I'd like to think that 4 years of Obama would but us in a much better social justice situation, but I think that with the economy tanking that there is unlikely to be the money available in order for him to make much change to the status quo. It gives me great hope that Obama is a supporter of peope like Geoffery Canada-who really exemplifies I think a mix of private enterprise and using well government grants and subsidies. And I do worry, greatly, about MCCain's temper and belligerence aiding in alienating us further in diplomatics relations.

All that said, I tend to agree with this, in part:

My conclusion here is that we can't evaluate proportionate reasons on the matter of abortion because in either case there will be no end to abortion - we have to make major assumptions about McCain to think otherwise, and then continue those assumptions within each state, and then ignore all of the research showing laws on abortion do not work to stop abortion.

What I mean by 'in part', is that I don't know if does any good exactly to compare the two candidates directly when seeking our proportionate reason. Rather saying "Candidate A supports intrinsic evil Y, though I disagree with Y--what in his platfrom offsets in a proportionate way the harm done through his support for X."

Ugh- my gosh I am babbling this morning--this is like the third thread I've just rambled aimlessly in. LOL! Sorry I think I need more coffee or sleep...

 

[geocajun]

Shannon,
In one sense I agree - we can evaluate the proportionate nature of various issues to one another without considering candidates, but on the other hand its pointless to do so because if the candidate doesn't have anything more than a wink and smile to offer as a solution to the greatest problem in the world, then they can't get the vote for that issue - at least not from a reasonable person.
When I say we can't evaluate the proportionate reasons here, it is in that context, which is that regardless of how proportionate the reason is in the objective sense, it can't be a proportionate reason for voting for a candidate in either case since its basically a wash.

 

[ShannonMcCatholic]

Shannon,
In one sense I agree - we can evaluate the proportionate nature of various issues to one another without considering candidates, but on the other hand its pointless to do so because if the candidate doesn't have anything more than a wink and smile to offer as a solution to the greatest problem in the world, then they can't get the vote for that issue - at least not from a reasonable person.
When I say we can't evaluate the proportionate reasons here, it is in that context, which is that regardless of how proportionate the reason is in the objective sense, it can't be a proportionate reason for voting for a candidate in either case since its basically a wash.

Though my brain is seriously not working fully, and I read that like 4 times...as I read that I think I agree. (Which is why for me a third pary or write in vote is my choice this year--however the discussion of all of this is still important, because I think I have to take into account the potential ramifications of a vote for neither candidate).

 

[benedictaoo]

I dunno- I try to look at what will the country be like 4 years from now? If Obama's self proclaimed first priority in office is to pass FOCA, 4 years from now could have us even farther away from righting the wrong of abortion and with steps which are very difficult to undo. However, with McCain in office for 4 years- we could be at or on the verge of war (possibly with a nuclear power)and without firm support of our allies. I'd like to think that 4 years of Obama would but us in a much better social justice situation, but I think that with the economy tanking that there is unlikely to be the money available in order for him to make much change to the status quo. It gives me great hope that Obama is a supporter of peope like Geoffery Canada-who really exemplifies I think a mix of private enterprise and using well government grants and subsidies. And I do worry, greatly, about MCCain's temper and belligerence aiding in alienating us further in diplomatics relations.

Not that I want to take this thread off course but I don't know, Did you listen Obama at the debate? He is no more anti war then Bush or McCain.