More on Intrinsic Evils and Prudentials Judgments: Race and Abortion, Cupich and Chaput
Very good posts below, both Peter Nixon’s parsing and Cathleen Kaveny’s essay. Couple of additional reads to suggest–one a very welcome (IMO) piece by Bishop Blase Cupich of Rapid City, S.D in the latest America, titled “Racism and the Election.” It is one of the only pieces I’ve seen from a religious leader addressing the ugliness emerging over the Obama candidacy. Money quote:
Last November the bishops issued Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the most recent of the documents we issue every four years during the teachable moment of our most important national elections to acquaint Catholics with their responsibilities in the forum of public policy. In that document we spoke of the things we must never do as individuals or a society because they are always incompatible with the love of God and neighbor. We cite the taking of innocent human life as one example of such intrinsically evil actions. Racism is another.
In any election people have many reasons to support one candidate or to oppose another. Some of these reasons may be wise and good, some not so good, and others simply wrong. The promotion neither of abortion nor racism can ever be a motivation for one’s vote. Voting for a candidate solely because of that candidate’s support for abortion or against him or her solely on the basis of his or her race is to promote an intrinsic evil. To do so consciously is indeed sinful. That is behavior incompatible with being a Christian. To allow racism to reign in our hearts and to determine our choice in this solemn moment for our nation is to cooperate with one of the great evils that has afflicted our society.
The other item is Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput’s latest take on why a Catholic cannot vote for Obama (which seems to be the bottom line of his argument). He stresses that he is speaking only as a private citizen and author, but his voice obviously carries a weight beyond that. (“Chuck the Archbishop?!”) Archbishop Chaput has been a strong proponent of the intrinsic evil of abortion governing all political choices, but he seems to be tougher than ever here, or perhaps it is the tone, and the fact that he is directly challenging Douglas Kmiec. Money quotes (via ZENIT, which has the text of the Oct. 17 address titled “Little Murders”):
Prof. Kmiec argues that there are defensible motives to support Senator Obama. Speaking for myself, I do not know any proportionate reason that could outweigh more than 40 million unborn children killed by abortion and the many millions of women deeply wounded by the loss and regret abortion creates.
To suggest — as some Catholics do — that Senator Obama is this year’s “real” pro-life candidate requires a peculiar kind of self-hypnosis, or moral confusion, or worse. To portray the 2008 Democratic Party presidential ticket as the preferred “pro-life” option is to subvert what the word “pro-life” means. Anyone interested in Senator Obama’s record on abortion and related issues should simply read Prof. Robert George’s essay of earlier this week, “Obama’s Abortion Extremism,” at thepublicdiscourse.com. It says everything that needs to be said.
Of course, these are simply my personal views as an author and private citizen. But I’m grateful to Prof. Kmiec for quoting me in his book and giving me the reason to speak so clearly about our differences. I think his activism for Senator Obama, and the work of Democratic-friendly groups like Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, have done a disservice to the Church, confused the natural priorities of Catholic social teaching, undermined the progress pro-lifers have made, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue instead of fighting within their parties and at the ballot box to protect the unborn.
Mr. Gibson – thank you for this excellent post. Intrinsic evils – doesn’t matter where you quote from, we live in a world with multiple “intrinsic evils”. Personally, I find Chaput’s arguments and partisanship to be concerning (despite his refutations – weak at best).
Am also conscious of the fact that I am disturbed by a joint letter from the Dallas/Fort Worth bishops that had to be read from all pulpits last Sunday – basically, a copy of what Morlino, Egan, and a couple of others have said (so, nothing very original).
Realize that I am cynical but Chaput continues to manuever his way to the NYC see. I, for one, do not buy his arguments. He, like Bishops K-Far and Vann, must have had their fingers crossed when they voted for Faithful Citizenship.
I think Bishop Blase Cupich wrote a very good article in latest America on racism and the election. I was born in Texas in 1945 and grew up there in the 40′s and 50′s. I can still remember separate water fountains, separate rest rooms, separate motels, separate places in church (Catholic churches), separate schools (No Catholic schools for African-Americans), etc. I did not go to school with an African-Americans till I was 18 years old and went to the University of San Francisco (Jesuit). I never thought I would live long enough to see an African-American be a serious contender for the Presidency. I am grateful. Racism is still a pervasive social sin in the United States.
And I think Cardinal Chaput’s activism (as a “private citizen” who happens to be an archbishop) has confused Catholics and others about the content of church teaching, and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon their responsibility to think carefully and prudently about everything a vote for president represents, and instead take the comforting but perhaps not so effective route of voting for the candidate who claims to be “prolife” regardless of all other concerns. Not to mention my dismay at his and others’ willingness to reduce the Church’s role in the public sphere to a single issue, tying it unwisely to one party and compromising its voice on every other issue. So I guess he and I will have to agree to disagree.
On the other hand, bless Bishop Cupich. That is the kind of voice the Church ought to have — speaking clearly and uncompromisingly about evil, without drawing transparently partisan conclusions. Had he concluded that Catholics are obliged to vote for Obama, to avoid any appearance of racist motivation, we would all be outraged, and rightly so.
When analyzing whether a proportionate reason exists to justify a vote for Obama over McCain, the relevant proportion is between the net contribution to the common good resulting from an Obama presidency, compared to the net contribution to the common good resutling from a McCain presidency. A McCain presidency will not bring an end to all abortions. At best, it is one step toward expanding legal protection for the unborn, which may prevent some abortions. So, the proportionate reason to vote for Obama need not outweigh 40 million children killed by abortion, only the number that one could reasonably expect to save if McCain rather than Obama held the presidency for the next four years. That number is certainly much smaller and the idea that the “proportionate reason” to justify a vote for Obama must be something comparable in magnitude to the entirety of the abortion holocaust since Roe was decided is incorrect.
I wonder if anyone has noted a kind of knee-jerk response on this blog to any criticism – I will not say of Mr. Obama – but of those who are attempting to find a way to defend a vote for him. I permit myself to suggest that it is not even a matter of being pro-Democratic Party, as much as being anti-Republican Party. Mention of Mr. Bush seems to arouse a viscerally unfavorable response. [As does any favorable mention of an American Catholic bishop].
I have heard-tell that Mr. Bush’s steady response to Muslim attacks likened to Mr. Truman’s steadiness against Communist incursions. Nothing political is permanent but on the whole, the collapse of the Eastern political bloc is surely something good.
Might not resistance to the Muslimization of the West be a good thing? Add this, if the West [and I include the U.S.] continues its elimination of a large part of the next generation, the Muslim world is likely to become our world. What was saved at Poitiers and Lepanto and Vienna might be lost in the abortuaries of Planned Unparenthood.
I note that alleviation of poverty is promoted as a sure method to reduce abortions. But most abortions are performed on middle class women, as conveniences; birth prevention not to interfere with the comfortable life. The underlying concern of our bishops is not the deaths of the infants -God will receive them – but the danger to the souls of those asking for and committing the abortions. They are the ones who risk ending in Hell.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jiPlZPgP2opGSJfRLYsYEf_wGEbAD93TAPQ01
Gabriel: The entire first half of this post is a “favorable mention of an American Catholic bishop.” I didn’t see any knees jerking to counter it.
I applaud bishops for being concerned about the souls of women seeking abortions, and in particular those for whom financial need is not a deciding factor. That is a concern for the Church; we fail the gospel if we ignore it. But activism directed at overturning Roe v. Wade is not the only way, and perhaps may not be the best way, to help those women.
Mollie,
I’m a little concerned that you regard Catholic efforts “directed at overturning Roe v. Wade” as “activism” over and above the Gospel mandate, which apparently stops at being “concerned about the souls of women seeking abortions.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the Church has never so consigned itself to the realm of private conscience as to regard the top-down imposition of homicide-on-demand – no matter how complicated the circumstances surrounding the killing – as something it should hold its tongue about.
To be clear, your point that overturning Roe v. Wade cannot and should not be the only avenue for Catholic efforts on this issue is well taken. But your language suggests that you’d be perfectly happy with the bishops if they said nothing directly about Roe v. Wade at all. That, in my opinion, is insupportable. It is one thing to recognize that Roe is deeply entrenched as a precedent and has allowed the culture to solidify around a permissive attitude towards abortion, and to base practical efforts on that recognition. But it is quite another to imply that it is not “a concern for the Church” to oppose the legalization of killing innocent human beings in any context.