“Can American Catholics vote for Paul Ryan?”
In the 25 August issue of the London Tablet, Clifford Longley’s column discusses the candidature of Paul Ryan and wonders about episcopal reactions to his endorsement of the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Longley believes, as did Rand herself, that “it really is not possible simultaneously to be both a supporter of Rand and a faithful member of the Catholic Church.” There follows this paragraph:
The US Catholic bishops have a reputation for doctrinal watchfulness where politicians are concerned, some of them even announcing that they would exclude the 2004 presidential candidate John Kerry from Holy Communion because of his (qualified) support for abortion. Ryan’s attachment to Rand’s economic theories is more questionable, and indeed in terms of Catholic Social Teaching must be regarded as heretical. Although one would never like to see church discipline invoked to impose Catholic Social Teaching on anyone against their [sic] will, there is as clear a need for episcopal leadership in this case as in that one. Can American Catholics vote for Paul Ryan? One would think not, and the bishops should say so.
His sentence about the 2004 presidential race should have noted that it was a minority of US bishops who threatened to withhold Communion from John Kerry. And what dogmas in Catholic Social Teaching would make opposing views “heretical”?
Longley returns to hyperbole in his last sentences:
The official Catholic analysis of the presidential election appears to be that President Obama is now such an enemy of Catholicism because of his positions on contraception, abortion and gay marriage, that he has to be defeated at all costs. The candidature of Romney and Ryan are the means for doing so. And nothing else counts.
Do we really want bishops declaring openly that Catholics cannot vote for Obama or cannot vote for Romney? And what effect would either declaration have on Catholics? My sense is that most Catholics don’t look to bishops for specific guidance in their electoral choices, and I believe that most US bishops do not think that is part of their mandate.
I don’t want bishops openly declaring who we can and cannot vote for, but I do look to them for guidance. After all, they will be paying the closest attention to the issues in relation to Catholic teaching and analyzing them in that context. (I know, I should do this too, but my Catholic leaders are much more versed than I am in all the nuaces of dogma and such.)
I need big thinkers to put all the facts before me and then I’ll make a decision. Besides, I don’t think they could really tell us who to vote for, because neither party falls squarely along Catholic lines on all the issues. And if we can’t vote for someone who doesn’t match Catholic teaching on all issues, then we really can’t vote at all. And if the Catholic populace fails to vote because neither party is 100% Catholic, then we are not serving our country/citizens.
“Can American Catholics vote for Paul Ryan?” They sure can! All they have to do is show up at their local polling place (ID requirements may vary) on Nov. 6 and check the box (or fill in the bubble or touch the screen) next to his name. It’s easy to do; not only *can* American Catholics vote for Paul Ryan, millions of them *will* vote for Paul Ryan.
But seriously now…. I agree that it’s hard to see what dogmas Ryan (or Catholics voting for him) would violate; and I doubt a declaration by bishops (singly or together) would have much effect on Catholic voters. (Although after last night’s speech, I do kind of hope that Ryan’s bishop or pastor will have a quiet, prayerful consultation with him about the 9th commandment. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_shall_not_bear_false_witness_against_your_neighbor)
I don’t think they could really tell us who to vote for, because neither party falls squarely along Catholic lines on all the issues. And if we can’t vote for someone who doesn’t match Catholic teaching on all issues, then we really can’t vote at all.
Michelle has nailed this issue.
The question is not: can they?
The question is: should they?
“And if we can’t vote for someone who doesn’t match Catholic teaching on all issues, then we really can’t vote at all.” Such a person does not live today, has not lived in the past, and most likely will not live in the future.
You missed this part, Bob: “And if the Catholic populace fails to vote because neither party is 100% Catholic, then we are not serving our country/citizens.”
The former bishop used to do up a great voter’s guide, reminding everyone of church teaching and offering questions for reflection before voting. They weren’t wishy-washy questions, either designed to make you feel great about your vote. In fact, they were designed to make you feel a little soiled no matter whom you voted for. Cuz politics is a besoiling business; it’s a matter of degree.
The current bishop falls just short of telling you whom to vote for, but making it pretty clear that the GOP is the party of Good Catholics.
As a Bad Catholic, I have to say that the former bishop’s voter’s guide did more for my faith formation. The current bishop’s guide just ticks me off, and I find I ignore church teaching more as a result.
I think the bishops should stick closely to what was said by then Cardinal Ratzinger on the topic of voting and make it clear that Catholics cannot vote for Romney because he plans to serve the rich and crush the poor but otherwise has no current position that at sometime he has not held the opposite of, and Catholics cannot vote for Ryan because he adopted his philosophy from a godless, heartless extremist and would abandon the sick, the poor, and the disabled to further enrich the already wealthy, but Catholics can vote for Romney in spite of the fact that he plans to serve the rich and crush the poor but otherwise has no current position that at sometime he has not held the opposite of , and Catholics can vote for Ryan in spite of the fact that he adopted his philosophy from a godless, heartless extremist and would abandon the sick, the poor, and the disabled to further enrich the already wealthy. Of course, one’s reasons must be proportionate.
David Nickol, bravo.
Here’s the part I get, though I don’t think I agree with: As a Catholic, I cannot vote for Mitt Romney because his policies do not show enough compassion for the poor.
Hear the part I don’t get, because it’s simply not gettable: Therefore, as a Catholic, I am voting for a man who does not believe that innocent, unborn human life should be protected in law.
I don’t think the bishops should tell Catholics who to vote for. One reason is that I’m not sure about their motives – I mean, they have an agenda, and while, yes, other groups that give advice on how to vote (Sierra Club, for instnace) also have agendas, the motives of those groups are pretty up front, while the bishops instead give their advice as if it came straight from God’s lips.
The main question I hoped might be discussed was whether people agree with Longley that the bishops should tell U.S. Catholics that they should not vote for Ryan. If we don’t want them doing it in the case of Obama, can we ask that they do it in the case of Ryan, and vice-versa, of course? I wonder whether Longley would like the U.K. bishops to make similar statements about their candidates?
A unique opportunity: suppose Ryan and Biden were to attend the same Mass after their VP debate? IMHO, it would be an edifying event. Someone could invite Michael Sean Winters and George Weigel.
“The day after delivering his first major address to the nation, Paul Ryan attended daily mass at Our Lady of Grace parish in St. Petersburg. . .
A number of Catholic elected officials, such as Kansas governor Sam Brownback and New Jersey congressman Chris Smith, were also in attendance. . .Following mass, Ryan cheerfully greeted fellow Catholics at a reception in the parish hall next door and delivered brief remarks without notes. ‘I just can’t tell you how sustaining and energizing it is to have so many people come up and say they’re praying for us . . .’”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/paul-and-janna-ryan-go-church_651244.html
During the 2004 campaign, one Florida bishop dog-whistled HIS preference by repeatedly saying that if you don’t have the right to life, all your other rights are worthless. I suspect his influence may have been enough to swing the Catholic vote toward Bush, and I’ve had no respect for him ever since. My own opinion is that if you live on a planet that no longer supports life, then the right to life is worthless–and the party of Big Oil isn’t going to face the reality of climate change.
It appears to me that U.S. bishops are meddling in politics ever more boldly, in the smug certainty that if the IRS tried to revoke the Church’s tax-exempt status, American Catholics would express their outrage so forcefully that the government would have to back down.
Make that “to swing the FLORIDA Catholic vote toward Bush….”
0n a related point, when will the doctrinal committee start instigating Sirico’s book, which embraces the kind of libertarianism that has been consistently comdemned by the Church.
Bishops who chair various committees concerned with social policy have already published letters they’ve written to Ryan, expressing concern about provisions in his budget. The bishops have also issued their quadrennial guide, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”.
That’s what the bishops can do. It’s up to the rest of us to connect the dots.
Fr. Komonchak, I guess, for me, it would depend on who says it and how they say it. Party affiliation of the candidate in question isn’t important.
For example, if a bishop were to say, “As a Catholic, I am not voting for Candidate X, and here’s why,” I would pay attention. I would see the bishop’s statement as an example of how a committed Catholic applies his faith to daily life. It’s the kind of statement that invites consideration.
If a bishop were to say, “Catholics should not vote for Candidate X, and here’s why,” I would see the statement as a fairly thinly veiled way of saying that “Catholics who DO vote for Candidate X are not good Catholics.” It’s the kind of statement that invites no consideration, only sounds like a command.
However, if a bishop I respected for his holiness and work in the diocese were to make either statement, I would take notice.
By the same token, if the bishop is someone who spends a lot of time toadying up to the rich members of the diocese and organizing golf outing fundraisers for same, I would be more likely to ignore him.
I think bishops SHOULD offer opinions about our political landscape, but it seems to me that there are ways for them to do so in ways that would guide and unite rather than divide Catholics.
Shouldn’t the bishos speak out about the apparently wilfull misreresemtations by some candidates? Surely it is sinful, and given the importamce of the presidemtial campaigns the sins would not seem to be venial ones.
Frankly, one candidate seems to have no regard for truth at all. (He makes Sarah Palin look good!) Should the bishops target just one wgregious misreresenter?
There are two double questions, I think, in Fr. Komonchak’s original question. Are we speaking of the bishops as a conference, or individual bishops? If it’s the latter, Jean Raber, as she so often does, seems to have it right. If someone like Dom Helder Camara chose to name names, I would choose to listen, but the average bishop? Not so much. Still, I think what would be OK for a Helder Camara would be objectionable in the whole national bishops’ conference. I am not exactly sure why, but it may have to do with this: Voting is an individual act of one voter for one candidate. Thunder from the USCCB is an institutional response.
The other double question goes like this: Should bishops say Catholics must vote for someone? The answer to that is clearly no. No candidate I can think of in the history of this country was ever a perfect representative of Catholic social thought. Should bishops say Catholics must NOT vote for someone? That is harder (and that is the way Fr K. asked the question).
Pope Pius XII tried that in 1949 in relation to the Communist Party. Although the prohibition was more generally phrased, the understanding (and the one he intended) was that someone who voted Communist was automatically excommunicated. That is about the heaviest weapon the Church has. I don’t know what happened next, but the Communists continued to get votes in Italy, and later the Italian Communists, by discovering “Eurocommunism,” helped in a small way and unintentionally to undermine Moscow’s authority. I have never seen anything on whether Italian confessors were subsequently bombarded by Italian voters shriving themselves. I doubt that the Vatican (which backed the Confederacy in our Civil War) or the bishops’ conference is smart enough to pick political winners and losers.
Just an FYI – while hunting around for those bishops’ letters to Ryan, I ran across this short little video on poverty, put out by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development. It’s really good – really rings true with the experiences of the clients we serve in our outreach ministry. Someone should send it to Ryan.
http://www.povertyusa.org/the-state-of-poverty/poverty-usa-tour/
Sorry, one more link: this America Magazine article, by Richard Pates, the bishop of Des Moines, is linked from the Poverty USA site to which I provided a link in my previous comment. The article is very good.
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=13529
I think Jean Raber’s comment is quite right; it reinforces the idea that genuine authority is not determined solely by formal criteria (properly elected or appointed; ordained; etc.), but has also to be earned in order to be effective. The proper functioning of authority, Newman and Rosmini agreed, depends on admiration, love, and trust in those one is trying to lead, and these require that authority be exercised in a manner to evince them.
The Roman document that set out the juridical status of episcopal conferences stipulated that only statements that have the numerically unanimous agreement of all members have formal authority–something unlikely to occur in statements of so contingent a character.
Joseph, wasn’t it yesterday that you were reminding posters that “it was a minority of US bishops who threatened to withhold Communion from John Kerry”?
Now they have to have “numerically unanimous agreement”?
(I can’t find the comment in which you said that about a minority of bishops. Did you delete it?)
(I thought every bishop was the lord of his manor. If one bishop denies communion to a Democrat, isn’t that enough of a signal to voters?)
Gerelyn: My comment today was about statements issued by episcopal conferences, not by individual bishops. A single bishop’s denial of communion certainly would send a signal to voters, which is probably one of the reasons why the great majority of bishops did not (in Kerry’s case) and have not since threatened to do so. And Catholics are free to disagree with the bishops who might give such a signal.
My comment about the minority of bishops is in the post that opened this thread.
Any doctrine that commends or recommends unbridled selfishness is a heresy, in the sense that it is opposed to everything we know about the God of the Old and New Testaments.
Thanks, Joseph, I see it now.
I think the distinctions you draw between single bishops, the great majority of bishops, and the minority of bishops might be too fine for ordinary Catholics.
I found this confusing, too:
Longley returns to hyperbole in his last sentences:
The official Catholic analysis of the presidential election appears to be that President Obama is now such an enemy of Catholicism because of his positions on contraception, abortion and gay marriage, that he has to be defeated at all costs.
I don’t see what that’s “hyperbole.” To me, it seems like the simple truth. If contraception, abortion, and gay marriage are not the three theological virtues these days, what are they? What was the Fortnight of Freedom about, if not an attack on Obama? What was the assault on the LCWR about, if not the nuns’ failure to squawk about the big three? Etc.
To me, it’s like Groeschel and Akin. They put into plain English what the Church and the Republican Party preach, teach, and sanctify. Why is that “hyperbole”? And to say “Catholics are free to disagree with the bishops who might give such a signal”? Do Catholics know they’re free? When a bishop tells his priests to deny the sacraments to Sebelius, Kerry, et al., is the priest free to ignore the command?
Unbridled selfishness directly opposes the dignity of the human person, and denies the value of solidarity, which is related to respect for the human person. It also embodies a profound opposition to the doctrine of creation, which affirms that God created human beings to live together.
The doctrine of the Trinity is also affronted by the doctrine of unbridled selfishness.
Do I have to go on? What dogma is lacking?
If someone wants to argue that Paul Ryan didn’t really mean it when he said he was a follower of Ayn Rand, fine. But one can’t hold to Rand’s teachings and be an upholder of Catholicism at the same time.
” If contraception, abortion, and gay marriage are not the three theological virtues these days, what are they?”
They are three among a number of other important issues that confront our nation. The US bishops as a group have spoken magisterially about the responsibilities of voters and candidates in regard to these three issues and the other important issues. That exercise in church teaching is contained in the document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship”, which is available here: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-title.cfm
I don’t believe you will find anywhere in that document any directives regarding which candidates or parties to vote for, except that it is something that each of us needs to responsibly and faithfully discern.
Rita:
First, to make it clear: I agree that “it really is not possible simultaneously to be both a supporter of Rand and a faithful member of the Catholic Church”; and I didn’t say anything to suggest anything else.
Second, Longley wrote: “Ryan’s attachment to Rand’s economic theories is more questionable, and indeed in terms of Catholic Social Teaching must be regarded as heretical.” The contrast is between Ryan’s “economic theories” and “Catholic Social Teaching.” He wasn’t talking about the Catholic faith in general, but about “Catholic Social Teaching,” which is commonly taken to mean a set of positions on economic and social problems, not matters of faith, as much as the latter may provide the basis for it; didn’t and don’t the encyclicals point to principles that everyone should be able to recognize, e.g, the “natural law”? If you look at the great texts of CST and even more at developed applications of its principles (e.g., how to deal with poverty), you won’t find any defined dogmas opposition to which could be characterized as “heretical”. It is possible to be quite and seriously wrong without being a heretic. I don’t think I’m being picky here: these contingent issues are complex enough without complicating them further by considering them direct implications of, say, the doctrine of the Trinity.
Gerelyn:
You wrote: ” If contraception, abortion, and gay marriage are not the three theological virtues these days, what are they?” Perhaps you meant “vices”?
I wouldn’t think so poorly of the knowledge of Catholics as to think that they “don’t know they’re free” to disagree with their bishops on electoral matters. There’s considerable evidence that Catholics don’t agree with them. The parish priest may have to obey the disciplinary measure promulgated by a bishop, but that is a different matter, even for the priest, than being unfree to deny his vote to the disciplined candidate.
“0n a related point, when will the doctrinal committee start instigating Sirico’s book, which embraces the kind of libertarianism that has been consistently comdemned by the Church.”
Maybe said committee actually DID instigate Sirico’s book – but it still needs investigation!
(I know, snarky ith ath snarky doth)
I appreciate the layers in Tom Blackburn’s response. For Catholics, trying to figure out whether to give more weight to the statements of a single bishop or to the USCCB is probably a vexed question.
Having been raised a Unitarian (a congregational denomination in which there is no hierarchy and hardly any agreement on anything), I tend to pay more attention to the individual than the group.
What I do find interesting is looking at the headlines for the USCCB’s news releases. I did a word cloud using the thumbnails of their the releases for June, July and August. It’s hard to know exactly what to delete from the cloud so that you get some notion of the substantive issues the bishops are looking at, but here’s a stab, with the biggest (most frequently used words) to smallest (least often used).
freedom
congress
life
people
pope
court decision
community
dialogue
faith
family
help
house
pro-life provisions
service
world
work
campaign
congressional
ecumenical
educational
poverty
labor
Thank you, Joseph, for the clarifications and further comment.
In Mater et Magistra, Pope John XXIII describes the background to Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum by outlining the opinions which the Church rejects in light of the two-fold command of the Savior to charity (MM 11-13). Perhaps as Longley uses the term, “heresy” ought to be in scare quotes. But there is a Catholic teaching here that is being denied (presuming Rand’s economic views are actually embraced) or at least overlooked and transgressed (if the matter is not understood). How are we to characterize the opinions which are thus rejected, and what ought to be our response to those who continue to hold and promote such views in public life? I am not sure “wrong” is enough. UnCatholic?
Yet Ryan’s own bishop has approved of him publiclly, and told us that his conscience is “well formed” — which is as far as most people will look for church approval. The way is smoothed by such a statement. To Bp. Morlino’s credit, he qualified this, saying “well formed on this subject” or something to that effect. Yet what remains unsaid needs to be said — how malformed is the conscience of one who claims an affinity for Ayn Rand, whose views are totally incompatible with Catholic social teaching.
I would agree that Ryan should clarify in what respects he disagrees with Rand and to see if they include more than her atheism and utter rationalism. But “heretic” and “heretical” are powerful words, not to be used lightly, and in Church law they have a very precise meaning, and I continue to think that they don’t apply to dissenters from Catholic social teaching. (In the same way, I don’t think that it is heretical to hold that civil law ought to ban all abortions. There is no dogma to that effect.) In these cases one could say that the position is contrary to Catholic teaching, but that is not the same thing as the very grave delict of heresy.
FWIW – I take Ryan at his word that he doesn’t think he is dissenting from Catholic Social Teaching. I think he sincerely believes his policies will help the poor.
FWIW:
Ryan “expressed his gratitude for ‘the social Magisterium of the Catholic Church,’ Catholic social teaching, which ‘gives us the ability to exercise prudential judgment in a meaningful way,’ by laying out principles, mentioning that that is part of a monthly dinner with other Catholics in Congress to discuss Catholic Social Teaching and how it is relevant to the public-policy challenges we face.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/315532/paul-ryan-prayer-kathryn-jean-lopez
It would be interesting to learn more about these monthly meetings, although by becoming more public they would likely become less useful.
Fr Komonchak: Another way of approaching your question:aren’t there Catholics–on both the political left and right–who WANT the bishops to give directions to our fellow Catholic on how to vote? Don’t we all fall for the tempting prospect of Cardinal Dolan commanding all Catholics to support the political positions we hold most dear? For what good is Catholic Social Teaching if the majority of Catholics don’t obediently vote the “right” way–our way?
iMO, the 2012 election will have a subtle but critical impact on how the American Catholic Church identifies with Catholic Social Thought in the future. If both Paul Ryan and Joe Biden are seen as authentic interpreters of CST, won’t these venerable principles become reduced to meaningless political cliches? Won’t bishops retreat to the “safe haven” of warning Catholics not to vote for parties and politicians who support policies which are intrinsically evil?
The Catholic Church’s relationship with democratic political systems has been marked by ambiguity. The “sovereign” individual voter has proved to be as difficult to deal with as the sovereign monarchs of past eras.
“There is no dogma to that effect.”
The fact that every human individual was created in The Image of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female, is Catholic Dogma. To deny the personal and relational essence of the human person created in The Image of God, is to deny The Blessed Trinity, in whose Image we were created and is thus heresy.
Person: I did not state or imply that every human individual is created in the image of God. I said that there is no dogma that “civil law ought to ban all abortions.” You may regard it as an inescapable implication of the central faith of Christianity, but that is not the same thing as a solemnly defined teaching of the Church, which is what a dogma is.
J.P. Farry: Yes, people on each side rejoice when they can find a magisterial statement supporting their views and look for possibilities of dissent when they disagree with some magisterial teaching. It was wittily called the Duc nos quo tendimus idea of authority and obedience. That Latin line is from the Panis angelicus where it expresses the wish that God would lead us to where our hearts already yearn to be, within the light that God inhabits. Taken utterly out of context, it is used to refer to our desire that leaders lead us where we already want to go: that is, don’t lead us anywhere else!
“If both Paul Ryan and Joe Biden are seen as authentic interpreters of CST, won’t these venerable principles become reduced to meaningless political cliches?”
I think that’s an interesting observation, and that’s why I think it’s important for bishops, individually and collectively, to offer guidance. From my very unscientific study of the diction in their most recent news releases, it seems to me they’re plenty of poli-talk these days.
Whether individual bishops or groups of bishops carry the moral weight to be persuasive is another matter.
In the very olden days, people knew a saint when they saw one, and they could also differentiate one from a crooked pardoner. For details, see Geoffrey Chaucer.
We have Obama that supports gay marriage, contraceptive coverage for all and is pro-choice. He also wants universal health care (e.g., the ACA) and more entitlements for the poor. On the jobs and economic front his policies have failed to reduce unemployment and the growth we need.
Romney is pro-life and supports heterosexual marriage but wants to curtain government and reform entitlements. Romney also wants to reform Medicare and Medicaid, and replace the ACA with a program yet to be fully outlined.
From a Catholic teaching perspective (e.g., sexual and social ethics), both Obama and Romney seem to violate some of these teachings, There is also a heavy dose of uncertainty with the Romney platform.
In the end, I think Cardinal Ratzinger’s advice if appropriate. A political candidate is not defined by one issue and sometimes we find ourselves in a dilemma because no candidate follows the teachings of the Church completely on all issues. Hence, we must use our practical reason and the concept of proportionality in our political decision-making. There are some politicians that are pro-life but believe that it is morally licit to terminate a fetus when the life of the mother is immediately threatened by certain death and the fetus cannot survive under any circumstance. Some politicians are pro-choice but are against gay marriage.
The USCCB is strongly opposed to the contraceptive mandate in the ACA and against gay marriage which Obama supports. On the other hand, some bishops are against the Ryan budget plan, and are suspicious of Romney’s plan because it sounds a lot like some offshoot of Ryan’s plan.
If we are looking at the bishops for advice about who to vote for, I don’t believe we will get any definitive direction from them.
Some of the problem here is that it is very easy to oppose contraception, gay marriage, and abortion, because these issues involve single acts with clear consequences.
The best way to help children, the elderly and the poor, to increase jobs, and to create a fair playing field for workers is a much more complicated issues, involves conflicting economic theories, and a chain of actions (that may or may not work).
I often wonder if that’s why the bishops talk more frequently and specifically about contraception, gay marriage, and abortion–the solution for those problems is clear, just pass laws against them.
Also, small point of disagreement with Michael Barbieri that has nothing to do with the bishops or their advice about voting: Unemployment rose from 2008 to 2010, but has gone down overall by more than a percent since then, from a high of 9.9 during 2008/10 to a low of 8.3 percent in July of this month. Individual states have experienced nearly 2 percent drops in unemployment in the past year.
Things are marginally better in Michigan, which had the highest unemployment rate at one point during the Great Recession, but an awful lot of individuals in their 50s who were laid off took jobs that pay less, offer fewer or no benefits, and less job security. It’s an employer’s market out there, and they seem to be taking full advantage of it.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstch.htm
@Jean Raber,
There is a significant difference between the underlying philosophy and theology of sexual ethics versus social ethics. Sexual ethics are based on absolute norms, negative injunctions where there is little or no flexibility to resolve complex and everyday moral dilemmas. Social ethics are based on guidelines and principles, leaving the decision to the reason of Catholics.
You are correct that the unemployment rate since Obama took office significantly increased to over 10%, then decreased to its current 8.3%. However, Obama promised that the unemployment rate would not go over 8% and this was thought to be totally unacceptable…and it still does. Equally important, the growth rate of the economy has been dismal and significantly lower than the level needed for natural increases in the labor force (not to mention the unemployed and underemployed) and economic growth.
I have been a senior partner in a consulting firm and a SVP in a large Fortune 200 organization. No employer I ever worked for “takes advantage” of a recession. Everyone wants a robust economy where jobs are plentiful and profits increase. This creates “opportunities” for all, from senior management to maintenance personnel and other laborers. It also increases opportunities for the entire industrial and service supply chain.
I don’t see anything in Obama’s economic plan that is going to solve our nation’s unemployment and fiscal problems. It too late to blame Bush or the Republicans. He should take a page from Clinton and move to the center and negotiate. Unfortunately, he is too far left to do that.
“We have Obama that supports gay marriage …”
“Romney …. supports heterosexual marriage …”
You seem to be implying a false contradiction. Please show me where the President does NOT support heterosexual marriage. Please show me how one cannot support both.
“Sexual ethics are based on absolute norms, negative injunctions where there is little or no flexibility to resolve complex and everyday moral dilemmas.”
This simply shows that fallacy of absolutism. I also question that all sexual ethics are subject to absolute norms, most certainly in practice:
Abortion to save the life of the mother is permitted under the “nudge, nudge, wink, wink” theory that there be no direct intention to terminate the pregnancy. Many argue that condom use to prevent the spread of AIDS/HIV is not only permitted but THE moral choice. Marriages in the case of individuals clearly unable to procreate are permitted. Marriages in the case of individuals with no intention to procreate are not subject to latae sententiae excommunication. Pauline & Petrine Privilege divorces are permitted.
MJB: there are those on the far left who will flat out deny that the President is anything BUT a left centrist a la Bill Clinton.
Too are to the left??? You must be joking.
” Sexual ethics are based on absolute norms, negative injunctions where there is little or no flexibility to resolve complex and everyday moral dilemmas.”
I suspect that the reason Catholic morality about sexual sins is absolutist is because Aquinas thought that all sexual sins were mortal ones. I don’t know what his justification for this was, but it has not been a good influence on Catholic morality. Now that he is out of fashion in Church circles, maybe the point could be revisited more objectively, though it’s a great pity he has been dumped by so many about so much.
“There is a significant difference between the underlying philosophy and theology of sexual ethics versus social ethics. Sexual ethics are based on absolute norms, negative injunctions where there is little or no flexibility to resolve complex and everyday moral dilemmas. Social ethics are based on guidelines and principles, leaving the decision to the reason of Catholics.”
I thought that was what I was sayin’ without the fancy words. It’s “easier” for the bishops to teach about sex stuff b/c they are absolutes. Harder to teach about social and economic justice when there are so many schools of thought that can’t be proved what the “moral” thing to do is.
“I have been a senior partner in a consulting firm and a SVP in a large Fortune 200 organization. No employer I ever worked for ‘takes advantage’ of a recession.”
Well, with your background, I doubt you’d see employers as “taking advantage” of a recession. I do understand that hard times means cuts in wages, benefits, and finally, jobs, particularly culling out the older, more experienced, and more expensive, workers first. However, when times recover, it’s awfully hard for workers to get back what they lost. Particularly we older ones who have retired or died.
@Jean Raber,
Thanks for this clarification. Perhaps I did not understand your previous comment.
I agree that employers in a recession will cut workers, from senior management right on down the line. I have been a victim of that kind of stuff twice in my 35 year career and it is a terrible state to be in. However, as one of my earlier career bosses told me, everyone goes through this kind of thing at least once in their career.
Most executives will tell you that laying off workers in a recession is not based on performance or is it personal. Cuts have to be made and this means cutting many good workers. While these words are true, the experience is cut-wrenching. In my experience, most working executives and others in responsible positions help others who contact them for referrals, advice or opportunities. This does not guarantee you a job or even an opportunity in a recession. However, people in general are good by nature and reach out to help their neighbor as best they can.
There are some companies that are better in these situations than others, but our free enterprise system is very different from the social systems of Europe. In many European countries, most workers go on perpetual salary continuance, or something close to that, when they get laid off. However, while some of these countries look good from the outside, most Americans would not want to give up what they have for the so-called benefits of another country. Very high taxes fund a great deal of social system country benefits. Unfortunately, we in the U.S. do not live in a perfect state. We have to live with the good and the bad and try to improve our system and our own lot. However, for the most part employers are not as bad as some of the horror stories attest. As for myself, I try to live by the rule: there for the grace of God, go I.
Let us hope that we are all comfortable with our choices in this coming Presidential election. Let’s also pray that whoever wins will lead us out of our economic problems without causing too many negative consequences.
@Ann Oliver,
Thank you Ann for your comments.
I think Aquinas was a person influenced by his own culture. Aquinas inherited the theology of Augustine, who had a negative view of sex and marriage. From the earliest of times, the body, and its sexual inclinations, were thought to be evil in many ways. This gave rise to the Stoics and the Monastics, among others. The early Fathers of the Catholic Church viewed virginity and celibacy as “morally superior” to marriage. Marriage was thought to be a God created institution, covenant and sacrament by Catholics, but also as means to safe-guard fidelity and relieve concupiscence. It was not until the Reformation, that the theology of marriage was changed, notably by Luther, Calvin and others. To them, virginity and celibacy were a choice, not a requirement for Catholics including clergy. I do agree with you Ann, that many of the sexual ethical teachings of the Church should be modified, not simply based on modernity, but by our increased knowledge of philosophy, theology, anthropology, the sciences and the Gospels.
@Jim McCrea,
I agree with you Jim. Perhaps my point was not clear enough. I did not want to imply that someone cannot be both for heterosexual and homosexual marriage. I was trying to make the point that both the President and Romney have views that are in contradiction with the teachings of the Catholic Church. Hence, people have to weigh the views of each candidate based on their practical reason and the concept of proportionality.
I did not want to imply that I agree with all moral absolutes as they pertain to sexual ethics. I was providing a short explanation about the differences in moral method and philosophy between sexual and social ethics…that the Catholic Church uses. Why two different moral methods or philosophies? This does not mean that there cannot be some moral absolutes such as the injunction against killing an innocent person, or to abort a fetus because of the sex of the child or as a means of contraception.
I also agree with you that there is a profound difference between some sexual ethical doctrines and pastoral practices. For example, every priest knows that most young married people in child-bearing years practice contraception. These same Catholics don’t confess this as a mortal sin in confession and stand in line each week to receive the Eucharist. They are not denied the Eucharist nor does anyone ever hear about the USCCB requirements on reception of the Eucharist from the pulpit (in particular, that Catholics must confess contraception and receive absolution before receiving Holy Communion). This is a wink-wink kind of example that I think you were referring to. IMO, this is a contradiction between the word and the deed.
If I misled you, I apologize for not being more specific. However, I think we agree more than disagree. If there is disagreement, kindly let me know.
“Cuts have to be made and this means cutting many good workers. While these words are true, the experience is cut-wrenching. In my experience, most working executives and others in responsible positions help others who contact them for referrals, advice or opportunities. This does not guarantee you a job or even an opportunity in a recession. However, people in general are good by nature and reach out to help their neighbor as best they can.”
I survived two downsizings with my job intact, and both occurred when there was a change in the regime. These cuts were not gut-wrenching for the bosses because a) they were on vacation while the professional axe-men came in with their security cops to escort the axed out the door, and b) they were replacing the axed with their buddies from some other company, so it was a great day to be them.
The axed in both cases were not allowed to get their personal effects until the weekend, when no one could see or question them, and they were escorted in and out by security personnel and watched while they packed up stuff. Oh, yah, they did get a one-day free seminar in how to do a resume, and a terse letter noting that they were let go due to financial exigencies.
People in general are good by nature? No, I think people in general pursue self-preservation and “what’s theirs” with an intensity that trumps an awful lot of human kindness, particularly when they can it’s all “just business.”
@Jean Raber,
I understand and do not contradict what you say. Often times, downsizing is impersonal and just business. However, this does not mean that those that make the decision, or carry it out, like it. Telling someone who has had good performance reviews that the company’s budget and difficulties cannot support their continued employment, is the hardest thing to do for any manager. I agree, that some companies handle layoffs better than others, and no one has an easy time of it. However, it is part of our capitalistic society that layoffs are inevitable during a full business career. This does not make all layoff policies “right”, but this the reality in the U.S.
As for our politicians, they all talk the talk, but few walk the walk. The party platforms of both parties are often ignored by the candidates once elected. They follow their own agendas, and are influenced by things that they even campaigned against. When we are dissatisfied with their performance, we vote them out of office and hope that the next candidate will be better.
No candidate is perfect and in our judgment and decision-making, we must be guided by our practical reason and a sense of proportionality. No candidate will reflect all of our moral, social and faith beliefs. This does not mean that we should not do everything that is reasonable in order to change the system. We must strive for the good and the just, in a spirit of love. This is our nature. However, our nature is often clouded by sin, ignorance, a lack of faith, and circumstances. We are not perfect, and instead of criticizing everything and everyone who disagrees with us, we must try to move the conversation forward into the light of truth as best we can. This also means voting for the candidate that we believe will do a better job than the current candidate.