Hmmm? Where does that leave us?
August 10, 2012, 10:58 am
Posted by Margaret O'Brien Steinfels
“Baltimore Archbishop: Catholic Voters Can’t Vote for a Candidate Who Stands for an Intrinsic Evil”
Speaking to the Knights of Columbus: “For Catholic voters in November, Lori advises, “The question to ask is this: Are any of the candidates of either party, or independents, standing for something that is intrinsically evil, evil no matter what the circumstances? If that’s the case, a Catholic, regardless of his party affiliation, shouldn’t be voting for such a person.”
Also Hmm….
Is it a mortal or a venial sin to vote for Obama?
Is it an excommunicable (Hope there is such a word.) offense?
Is it an act of defiance and disobedience against the U.S. bishops exercising their teaching office?
It is an exercise of an informed conscience?
We have to be grateful that Bishops do not speak infallibly!
With all respect to Bishop Lori: because an evil is intrinsic – evil by its very nature rather than determined by circumstances – does not mean that it therefore outweighs all other evils. To say that an evil is instrinsic doesn’t really say anything about its importance.
Here is a thought experiment to illustrate this. I would characterize ethnic prejudice as being intrinsically evil. If a candidate for office has an irrational hatred of natives of Papua New Guinea, but otherwise treats his fellow humans equitably, then that intrinsic evil may not deter me from voting for that candidate, because frankly, it doesn’t seem to be very important, compared to other issues of our day. If that candidate’s opponent is all for going to war with China – something whose morality depends on circumstances – then it may seem reasonable to me to vote for the first guy, because the circumstantial evil would seem to far outweigh the intrinsic evil.
Here’s another way to think about this. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. But if history had panned out in such a way that abortion were illegal in the US, and almost no abortions occurred in the US, and the prospects of legalizing abortion were practically nil, then I’d have no qualms voting for the pro-abortion candidate if that candidate were stronger on issues of more moment.
He got an archdiocese (Baltimore). But he still needs the red hat. Hence statements like this
…. it leaves us with one of our bishop’s engaged in electioneering (by indirectly opposing a political candidate), a prohibited activity for 501c3 nonprofits who wish to remain tax-exempt.
Perhaps the good Bishops should focus on real attempts to thwart religious freedoms:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-joplin-mosque-fire-20120807,0,423146.story
If Archbishop Lori were thoughtful, he’d realize that his criterion would preclude Catholics from voting in almost all elections except perhaps those for dog-catcher. Since we are all sinners in need of redemption, he couldn’t vote even for himself.
Certainly the election of Pope Pius XII would have been precluded.
Just because the Catholic Church officially and the Catholic bishops refer to something as “evil,” it does not necessarily follow that this judgment is correct in each and every instance where Catholic authorities have pronounced this judgment. In each and every instance where Catholic authorities have pronounced something to be “evil,” their judgment can be questioned.
The vote is sacred. NO ONE tells me how to vote.
I went to vote against prayer Tuesday.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/07/opinion/prayer-in-missouri.html?_r=1
Two of the races had no challenger to the incumbents, so I wrote in my own name! (I lost.)
The prayer amendment passed. I don’t know if the Missouri bishops were behind that one or not. Sad to see what bishops, like Romney, Lori, et al., and their enablers want for our country: no more contraception, no more science, no more history, no more Girl Scouts, no more Medicare, no more “radical feminists”, etc., etc., etc.)
The vote is not sacred. Democracy is not sacred. They are secular, through and through. The attempt to sacralize democratic deliberation is precisely what gets people like Bishop Lori into trouble. Prudence, not purity, is the virtue Catholic voters most need when they cast their ballots.
The 5 Supreme Court Catholic justices vote every term NOT to hear a challenge to Roe/Wade abortion laws. Been doing this for decades.. Surely they need to be called out for evil. yes?
I’m looking forward to Abp Lori taking on Sen Barbara Mikulski.
Pope Benedict disagrees with Abp Lori.
Pope Benedict, before he was pope:
[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate's permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate's stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/7055?eng=y
Lori is kidding, right? Well, kidding himself, at least…
The vote may or may not be sacred, but “the church” teaches that CONSCIENCE is. Or is that another one of those inconvenient teachings that have to be suppressed in order to let the episcopal obsession with (their version of) sexual morality have its full sway?
If you couldn’t laugh you would have to cry…or leave.
It’s best to ignore Lori. Any attention will only encourage him.
Disagree, Matthew, as usual.
Check out Louis Ruprecht in an RD article from last year on Walt Whitman’s “Sacred Democracy”.
Execrate comes from the same proto root as sacred, and I execrate (invoke a curse upon) anyone who tells me I should cast my shard for someone I know has only contempt for our country in general and for women in particular.
Fifth definition of sacred in the American Heritage Dictionary, Third Edition, (my fave): Worthy of respect; venerable.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/3962/walt_whitman%E2%80%99s_sacred_democracy/
I have struggled mightily these past years with my relationship to the institutional Catholic Church. I am a Catholic—after 72 years of committment–it is a part of me. However, for me, the hierarchy has lost its moral authority. Remember that old warning about “co-operating with evil”? In my view that is precisely what the hierarchy from Popes through the Bishops did with regard the sex abuse scandal. The scandal was the behavior of the hierarchy.
The insistence of the bishops to meddle in politics further errods their credibility. To me, it does not appear that they opperate from informed consciences. I’m better off on my own than listening to them.
Come on, folks!
Lori was talking to the Knights of Columbus who pray, pay, obey.
He wasn’t talking to the rest of us.
Fer cryin’ out loud, give the fella a break!
(yes, offered in sarcasm)
Someone needs to send Lori a copy of Cathleen Kaveny’s AMERICA article on intrinsic evil. The good bishop might just learn something about the subject that he doesn’t want to learn.
Is the IRS paying attention to Lori?
Are Baltimore Catholics paying attention to this guy?
Will Lori get the red hat, now that he’s contradicted Ratzinger on the subject?
I’m struggling to see, exactly, that the hubbub is about this time? Didn’t he just state Catholic teaching? If he is, as some have suggested, “electioneering” by (as one commenter above put it) “indirectly opposing a political candidate”, then aren’t we setting a pretty thin precedent? Seems like lots of Catholic organizations (including the Commonweal Foundation) would be on thin ice under this “indirect opposition” standard.
Furthermore, the lack of consistency with the criticism is astounding. One bishop makes critical comments about the Ryan Budget, and he’s standing up for the truth of the Gospel; another makes some comments “interpreted” to “indirectly oppose” a Democrat, and it’s nothing but a dog whistle to the right-wing.
(And it’s only August for heaven’s sake.)
Joseph Jaglowicz:
Archbishop Lori was not only addressing just the K of C conventioneers. He was interviewed last night on World Over on EWTN, who claim to have an wide audience, where he said:
“We should vote for no candidate, that promotes as part of a platform or as part of his/her own position, intrinsic evil even if that means not voting.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95wJ15fOrrs&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Jeff Landry:
Sure sounds like he is “electioneering” and not just “indirectly opposing a political candidate” but pretty explicitly telling us Catholics not to vote for any member of the Democratic Party.
I would very careful with this report. I do not trust Lopez. She is a hack, pure and simple. Do we have hard evidence that Lori actually said this (which basically goes against Moral Theology 101!!!)?
“I would very careful with this report. I do not trust Lopez. She is a hack, pure and simple.”
Really?
susanne hayes
It’s 88 years for me. I’m with you, if that helps. Love, mary
Speaking to the Knights of Columbus:“For Catholic voters in November, Lori advises, “The question to ask is this:
What Ms. Lopez wrote was that +Lori told her that – presumbly in a telephone interview:
“This is a big moment for Catholic voters to step back from their party affiliation,” Baltimore archbishop William E. Lori tells me from the Knights of Columbus annual convention in Anaheim, Calif.
In a quick look at the transcripts of sermons and addresses from the convention, i didn’t see anything that +Lori said publically to that effect
http://www.kofc.org/un/en/conv/2012/addresses/index.html
Speaking to the Knights of Columbus:“For Catholic voters in November, Lori advises, “The question to ask is this:
What Ms. Lopez wrote was that +Lori told her that – presumbly in a telephone interview:
“This is a big moment for Catholic voters to step back from their party affiliation,” Baltimore archbishop William E. Lori tells me from the Knights of Columbus annual convention in Anaheim, Calif.
In a quick look at the transcripts of sermons and addresses from the convention, i didn’t see anything that +Lori said publicly to that effect
http://www.kofc.org/un/en/conv/2012/addresses/index.html
Whenever I read episcopal blather like this, I am reminded of a similar situation:
During a heated discussion about how the church could save face if it were to allow couples to decide how to limit offspring, Marcelino Zalba, a Spanish Jesuit member of the papal abirth control commission, asked, “What then with the millions we have sent to hell” if the rules are relaxed? Patty Crowley immediately responded in what became perhaps her most memorable quote. “Fr. Zalba,” she said, “do you really believe God has carried out all your orders?”
“Seems like lots of Catholic organizations (including the Commonweal Foundation) would be on thin ice under this “indirect opposition” standard.”
A lot of charities are indeed on thin ice with this, which is why we should get Congress to loosen the restriction.
But its been the rules for over 50 years; people in the nonprofit sector are pretty familiar with it and we go to a lot of work to avoid violating the prohibition. Not only are we barred from political activity, we have to be careful not to do too much lobbying (but we can do a little). And that includes what would be considered grassroots lobbying- like mobilizing people to support or oppose pending legislation or regulations.
At the different non-profits I have led, our attorneys set up 501c4 corporations which allowed us to lobby and still stay tax exempt. Even with the c4, though, we still we had to work very hard to be sure we were just weighing in on policies and legislation, not on candidates themselves. It was very complicated (for me anyway) so I just had our attorneys vet any communications/publications.
(Our lawyers did let us do a candidate profile with the c4, where the candidates themselves explained where they stood on different issues; our organization just couldn’t rate the candidates’ response)
The huge downside of giving up the c3 is that donations to the c4 are not tax deductible on the part of the donor. I was advised not to even accept money from other c3s to finance the work of the c4.
If Bishop Lori actually said what is claimed he said, and if the IRS thought it would encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate in an election, it would be a violation. The IRS has lots of FAQS on this, but they look at it case-by-case. http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=179432,00.html
The bishop could absolutely support or oppose a candidate as long as he makes it clear he is only speaking for himself and not on behalf of the organization he works for.
Commonweal: Is Commonweal Magazine a c3? I would be surprised. I’m not a Commonweal subscriber, my own donations go to the Commonweal Foundation, but I thought Commonweal Magazine was a separate entity from Commonweal Foundation.
I just checked Guidestar which says Commonweal Foundation is a nonprofit whose charitable purpose is to publish a religious magazine, so I guess it’s all one charitable organization.
Jeff –
Archbishop Lori’s statement is not standard Catholic teaching. He says it is against politicians who are “standing for intrinsic evils”. If he meant that we must always vote against politicians who approve and/or support intrinsic evils it is simply much too broad. There are relatively minor intrinsic evils that would be irrelevant in most campaigns. For instance, let’s say that you have the choice of voting for one of two highly eccentric candidates. One of them subscribes to the very weird notion that torturing worms is positively good for the human soul. Well, torture is an intrinsic evil, even of worms, but other issues in the campaign could easily outweigh his possible torturing of a few worms. If the other eccentric candidate is otherwise much less capable, then the reasonable thing would be to vote for the worm torturer.
Unfortunately, with the vastly reduced number of priests these days, Rome doesn’t always have many candidates to choose from when appointing new bishops, and brains don’t seem to count as much as they did in the old days. (Not very many months ago a certain cardinal was even quoted as saying that “Marriage is forever”. Pure heresy. See?)
Susanne and Mary =
I’m almost 82, and I’m with you all. No way am I going to leave the Church. But no way am I going to remain silent about it either. I just wish there were something we could do besides pray and complain loudly. Very frustrating. The Church in the West is dying.
“The vote is not sacred. Democracy is not sacred.”
I’m not sure what point is being made in this comment, but Lori’s point is that voting is a moral action, which I think we all agree with is undeniable.
Susanne, Mary, and Ann,
I’m a blink away from 76, and with you also; I left the Church years ago but returned about six years ago thanks to a most wonderful local priest. Last year I wrote a heartfelt letter to Bishop Lori explaining why I could not in good conscience contribute to his annual diocesan appeal. The only reply was a spate of form letters asking for money. So I am happy that Lori is no longer in the Bridgeport archdiocese, although it is terrifying to think who the possible replacement might be.
Susanne, Mary, Ann and Lauretta,
Thank you for validating my young(61) life. I stayed in the pew when my marriage was rejected, when I was told my mixed marriage made me unfit to be a parent, and more. But in my not-so-old age I’ve come to understand that perhaps the reformation was not the worst thing that ever happened, and Martin Luther may not be the #1 guy in hell. I was sick as the early indicators of the scandal leaked through my diocese, and lost it at the attack on the Sisters. I came to the conclusion that in the current milieu every Catholic is a Cafeteria Catholic, it’s just a question of which steam table. Unless and until the USCCB ceases to be a superpac of the RNC and gets back to full Gospel full time, I’m warming a pew with the ELCA. Familiar liturgy, familiar theology, unfamiliar friendliness.
Let’s be clear on Lopez. She is a public advocate for torture, defined by the Church as an intrinsically evil act. Applying the canon law reasoning on Cardinal Burke and his followers, she should therefore be denied holy communion. And yet she painting herself as an arbiter of orthodox Catholicism?
“And yet she painting herself as an arbiter of orthodox Catholicism?”
But you didn’t attack her theological chops, but rather her journalistic credibility in her reporting a statement. That’s a substantive difference.
I was entirely unaware that the National Review practiced journalism. That presumes a basis in facts and logic, which are sorely lacking. It’s agit-prop, pure and simple.