I wish I had been a fly on the walls of the annual fall meeting of the U.S. Catholic bishops three weeks ago in Baltimore. The 2012 U.S. presidential election was over, President Obama won a second term, U.S. Catholics were split about right down the middle (according to pollsters), and some bishops were caught with their teachings leaning way too close to telling the faithful what party and candidate to vote for. What did the bishops who were so vociferous against Obama thinking and feeling? What were the off-the-record comments of the bishops who stayed silent? How about the ones (like my bishop) who tried mightily to teach Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, in all its messiness and adult responsibility? What is Cardinal Dolan, the president of the USCCB, going to do now, in Obama's second term?
In discussions (ha! more like screeds and angry lectures) I had or listened to over the last several months, Catholics seemed to come down to two camps: the "I can never vote for a supporter of abortion rights" camp, which mostly meant "vote for Romney" and the "you have to consider all the issues" which was code language for "vote for Obama." One of those words which repeatedly came up was "intrinsic evil." Here was the thinking presented to me:
#1. Abortion is an intrinsic evil.
#2. President Obama is a support of abortion.
#3. I believe abortion is an intrinsic evil, therefore I must vote for the other guy, who does not (since 2001) support abortion.
#4. If I vote for Obama, I go to hell, or worse, should be excommunicated and thrown out of the Catholic Church.
So much for "discussion."
Two articles which came out about the time of the election shed more light than heat on the topic of intrinsic evil. One was a blog post on the website "Catholic Moral Theology" by Dr. Jana Bennett, a professor of ethics at the University of Dayton. "Voting Against Intrinsically Evil Acts: A Working List?". And the second appeared in America magazine, by the Notre Dame theologian and legal theorist, M. Cathleen Kaveny, "Intrinsic Evil and Political Responsibility." (October 27, 2012).
Let me summarize some very insightful thinking.
Bennett takes the time to list those actions, in her definition, "done by humans which are considered by Catholics to be always and everywhere wrong, regardless of circumstance." She refers to Pope John Paul II's Veritatis Splendor for support for the definition.
Please allow me to put her list here, as she says in her blog post, in no particular order:
1. Abortion
2. Rape
3. War of aggression
4. Adultery
5. Physical Torture
6. Masturbation
7. Human cloning
8. Gay sex acts
9. Calumny
10. Racism
11. Bodily mutilation
12. Usury
13. Sex with animals
14. Using artificial contraception
15. Lying
16. Slavery
17.Polygamy
18. Sexual Abuse
19. Pornography use
20. Mental torture
21. Arbitrary imprisonment
22. Pornography production
23. Prostitution
24. Murder
Bennett also mentions a couple of "Catholic voter guides" which stated that there are only five intrinsic evils: abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage, euthanasia, and cloning. She also again references Veritatis Splendor, where the pope lists many more intrinsically evil acts. But from the context of his writing, the paragraph (80) does not seem to be a definitive accounting, but rather more of a sermonistic acknowledgement of the evils human beings are capable of.
The second article by Professor Kaveny challenges the simplistic notion that only by identifying the intrinsic evils can one best make good prudential decisions on whom to vote for in an election. She states that this technical term of moral theology (so clearly explained in the article) is not much help in deciding whom to vote for. She sees the term not as analytical, but prophetic. For support she quotes at length the same paragraph 80 of Veritatis Splendor, and sees a parallel with the prophetic word "infamies" in Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes. The term intrinsic evil "is meant to start an urgent discussion among people of good will about grave injustices in the world. It does not provide a detailed blueprint for action. Identifying infamies is one thing. Deciding upon a strategy to deal with them is something else again."
See my next blog post for my thoughts.
First off I would like to ask you to tell me if there are any reasons of morality that a Catholic should not have voted for Romney in the election. And second off, Obama not only supports abortion, but also supports legislation that does not a baby who survives an abortion live. In fact he publicly displayed his support for a bill that included this measure when he was in the Illinois state senate. He also has supported measures that allow bestiality and sodomy: the National Defense Authorization Act. Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans bestiality and the bill that Senate approved on Nov. 15th and Obama supported repealed Article 125. He also is publicly supportive of gay marriage and gay relations and he has also spit on our Church with the HHS mandate and the cancelling of the grant program with the Catholic Church that helped to save and support human trafficking victims. And they ended it because the Church did not use abortions or contraception. And to add, Obama is an avid supporter of contraception use as seen in the HHS mandate that looks to force members of the Church to further an intrinsic evil by paying for contraception. I would think that even if you do not like Romney, you should be saying what Obama supports and stating the fact that no Catholic in good faith could vote for any person who supports any of these things let alone all of them.
ReplyDelete