More Q & A with Fr. Torraco
If I think that a candidate who is pro-abortion has better ideas to serve the poor, and the pro-life candidate has bad ideas that will hurt the poor, why may I not vote for the candidate that has the better ideas for serving the poor?
Serving the poor is not only admirable, but also obligatory for Catholics as an exercise of solidarity. Solidarity has to do with the sharing of both spiritual and material goods, and with what the Church calls the preferential option for the poor. This preference means that we have the duty to give priority to helping those most needful, both materially and spiritually.
Beginning in the family, solidarity extends to every human association, even to the international moral order. Based on the response to a previous question, two important points must be made.
First, when it comes to the matter of determining how social and economic policy can best serve the poor, there can be a legitimate variety of approaches proposed, and therefore legitimate disagreement among voters and candidates for office.
Secondly, solidarity can never be at the price of embracing a “disqualifying issue.” Besides, when it comes to the unborn, abortion is a most grievous offense against solidarity, for the unborn are surely among society’s most needful. The right to life is a paramount issue because as Pope John Paul II says it is “the first right, on which all the others are based, and which cannot be recuperated once it is lost.”
If a candidate for office refuses solidarity with the unborn, he has laid the ground for refusing solidarity with anyone.
posted by Moderator @ 11:24 AM
11 Comments
11 Comments:
1. In an instance where all of the candidates are "pro-choice", it is not clear from this essay whether one is barred from voting at all. Does anyone have a view on that?
2. A discussion I wish to promote is not whether abortion is wrong. We are way beyond that
. The discussion has to do with:
A) whether a candidate who may or may not support abortion, disqualifies himself from support because he or she does believe it calls for a political remedy;
B) whether those who advocate the malum in se disqualification position, can show us their consistency by relating the same remedy to matters other than abortion, euthanasia, and suicide.
The approach of the essay continues to follow the path of using examples of close questions as being matters of political discretion.
In the real world, people are starving, suffering from lack of adequate medical care, and are living in inadequate shelters or in a social system where lack of adequate education pre-empts them from having a fair opportunity to experience health, happiness and security.
Does any of that involve malum in se political decisions, and, if so, are we forbidden from voting for politicians who fail to advocate an appropriate remedial course?
On Anon
Anon-
please keep stopping back.
Fr. Torraco has more on these subjects that will be presented in future posts.
Anon,
The key to understanding the issue is this: there is a hierarchy of truths and a hierarchy of moral requirements.
We must first oppose intrinsic evils and work to end them, and then consider non-intrinsic issues.
On the matter of abortion, a candidate is either pro-killing cute babies or anti-killing cute babies. On matters of social services, most candidates agree we should help the poor... but disagree on how to do it, or how much money to spend. One candidate may want 1 million to spent, another 2 million.
Notice the difference. Concerning abortion, the difference is a matter of 'type and kind.' Concerning matters of social services, it is a matter of degrees.
How much should be spent on social services, and what should be done about this problem or that problem, is a matter of prudential judgment. Only when a candidate supports matters that are intrinsically evil is that candidate automatically disqualified.
1. In short, if there are all pro-choice candidates, we select the least evil of them...but we can't do it because they are pro-choice. We must do so DESPITE their being pro-choice. If there is a pro-life option, we must take it.
2. A. Your question doesn't make sense.
2. B. I'm not sure you know what "malum in se" means. It means "evil unto itself", also known as intrinsically evil. Abortion and euthanasia are intrinsically evil, and so candidates are disqualified if they support the intrinsically evil. Matters of war, the death penalty, and poverty are not intrinsically evil.
Anon, it's becoming rather clear that you don't know what many of the words being used mean.
How do we address poverty, starvation, provide medical care, etc? That is for individuals to decide. The Church does not tell us how to run society. Some may wish to do it with Socialism, others with Capitalism, others with still another way. Since the matters are of prudential judgment, we are free to disagree and hold different positions.
If you want a religion that tells you exactly how society should be run, become a Muslim or a Calvinist. The Church allows individuals and societies to find their own solutions to problems that are not intrinsically evil.
To problems that are intrinsically evil, the Church informs all societies how to solve the problem. Stop doing the intrinsically evil action (in this case, abortion).
I repeat my offer to discuss these matters via email. You are in need of some solid introductions to Church teaching.
a film company in Los Angeles is in pre-production on a documentary for Our Lady of America. The convent number in Ohio is difficult to contact. Does anyone have a alternate phone number. thanks in advance
ANOTHER film company? We've heard that before.
Call 260-854-3525 for info.
Luke,
In my prior post, "A" should have read as follows: A candidate may oppose abortion, but not be of the view that a political remedy, i.e., the outlawing of abortion, is the correct solution. Under the position adopted by the essay, are Catholics barred from voting from for such a candidate?
I will let you comment on that point, if you will, before responding to your overall commentary -- if, of course, the anonymous moderator does not arbitrarily delete or block my post for the seventh time.
Best wishes,
On Anon
If you behave, you can stay. If you go back to your bad behavior, you will be deleted.
OLTIV is not here to give you or anyone else a forum to spout militant rhetoric attacking Catholic doctrine.
Our blog...our rules. If you don't like it, start your own blog and feel free to write whatever you like.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anon-
You have worn out your welcome.
Please take your disrespectful attitude elsewhere.
Anon,
That candidate would be incorrect.
Let's take that line of reasoning, but replace the word "abortion" with any other intrinsically evil act:
"A candidate may oppose rape, but not be of the view that a political remedy, i.e., the outlawing of rape, is the correct solution. Under the position adopted by the essay, are Catholics barred from voting from for such a candidate?"
If a person says, "I'm opposed to rape but don't think we should have laws against it" you would think them crazy, and with good reason. Something so evil should not be permitted, and if it does take place the primary perpetrator (in this case, a doctor) should be punished severely under the law.
I have a question. Do you think this anon person is just so bent on voting for Obama that they feel conflicted and are trying to rationalize their decision? They feel that their canidate has so much going for him that the abortion issue just can't be a disqualifying factor. It just seems like they keep going over and over the same things in the hopes they will get a different answer the next time. Strange.
AnonymousKY
Post a Comment
<< Home