I would prefer a more evenhanded critique of ALL politicians. I am amazed that anyone believes any good comes out of politics. I’m sick of certain segments of the orthodox Catholic bloc who think only in black and white. Conservative good/Liberal bad. They are useful idiots for any clever politician who mouths the conservative pro-life or pro-family message to get elected. Some true believers even labored to show how parts of the politician’s platform meshed with Biblical teaching. Worked well to get the evangelical vote; and then they did whatever they pleased after election.

This is hilarious.  Rob, you will be happy to know that just a few days ago, I was being arraigned by the guardians of truly true Catholic faith as a secret Democrat shill for my grave sin of questioning Sharron Angle and Rich Iott.  Diagnoses of my soul were flying thick and fast.  Now it turns out I have a simplistic black and white Conservative good/Liberal bad ideology!  Wondrous!

Just to be clear, I generally don’t support candidates from either party at the national level, since they generally ask me to support some grave intrinsic evil like abortion or torture.  I reject the notion of “Lesser of Two Evils” Voting, since what you get when you do this is, you know, evil.

The standard rejoinder to this is “You can’t have a perfect candidate”, a fact most people with a pulse understand.  I’m not asking for perfection.  I’m asking for candidates who are not seeking to implement policies worthy of the fires of hell.  In short, I just want minimum decency, not perfection.  So that whole lie is a red herring and it’s astonishing to me that any Catholic (much less most Catholics) can buy it so uncritically.  But buy it they do, aloing with the astonishingly tribal lie that if you criticize Candidate Smith for any reason, then it follows you must support his opponent, Candidate Jones.  My criticism of Obama’s incompetence does not imply “VOTE GOP!” any more than my criticism of Angle’s incredibly irresponsible remarks means “Vote for Reid.”  If you think it does, then it may well be you who is thinking in black and white.

LOL Rob you obviously haven’t been reading Shea’s blog this week!

This post does not belong on the NCR website - You are entitled to your opinion but those of us coming to this site (or receiving twitter feeds) for religious news should not be subjected to it. Considering the reach of NCR, it is almost as inappropriate as using the homily to endorse political candidates. Now, like every other polarizing issue in the US at the moment, I will have to find a Catholic news site that isn’t run but angry, red-faced, republicans.

Mark—As one of those guardians of truly true Catholic faith who arraigned you for your sins against blessed Sharron, I must ask you to define “minumum decency” in a candidate for high office.  I understand why you wouldn’t vote for an abortion supporter—he or she would not pass the test.  But what was not minimally decent about, say, George Bush or John McCain?  Please don’t say he advocated torture.

Mark,

I agree in the unavoidable evil of choosing the lesser of two evils.  But, in a system where the third party may have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning (or, worse, where the third party fronts a candidate who has got some serious moral baggage), isn’t it better to make a choice that matters rather than just throw your vote away?

Pick your issue: the unborn or the residents at gitmo.

Will it ever help the voiceless victim for us to hold true to our oh-so-precious principles and throw our votes away?  I don’t know.  Call me jaded, but it seems that the unborn baby and the tortured human (someone else’s baby) don’t care about our principles so much as they just care about us protecting them… which sometimes might require choosing a *viable* option - a lesser of two evils.  It seems that right NOW, in order to repeal REAL laws that result in REAL deaths, the only viable option is to choose a lesser evil rather than holding out for that perfect candidate who may never actually exist.

Let me be clear: I certainly see the value of your virtuous stance.

I’ve seen God work miracles when we humbly submit ourselves COMPLETELY to His will.

But, at the same time, He has placed us in this world of mud and fog in order that we may lay aside our addiction to perfection, accept our brokenness, do what we can to make a go of it, and give the rest over to God.

Writing this, I’m realizing that the question comes down to: what exactly are we meant to control?  Perhaps I’m more of the mindset that we were meant to manipulate our political machine.  You seem to be more convinced of the fact that the machine has become a monster, too powerful for our human control… God alone must be depended upon to affect real political change.

I see value in both ways of thinking.

I have my biases, but am as of yet unconvinced of either stance.

Pick your issue: the unborn or the residents at gitmo.

Pick your method of gas execution: carbon monoxide or hydrogen cyanide.

This is fun! Did you ever stop to think, “Uh, neither?”

Does it matter whether you end up in hell for murder or for adultery?

So long as we are willing to keep settling for “the lesser of two evils” than evil will be allowed to continue.

“Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”

Andy,

So I can assume you’re of the opinion that “the machine has become a monster, too powerful for our human control and that we must wait for God to affect any real political change”?

My point is that *usually* in our system, there is no *viable* option for neither.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, but perhaps the hard work of actually changing the world in which we live is left up to those who are actually willing to take the bull by the horns and work with the imperfect individuals and processes that we’ve got.

Perhaps…?

Or perhaps the change that we need will always be left up to God… but I can’t help but get this nagging feeling that, in the mean time, we’ve got to do what we can.  And, in the usual election cycle, that includes picking one of the two candidates who in all actuality will eventually take office.

David:

Whether you like it or not, Bush not only advocated, he implemented torture.  As to McCain, he (like Bush) embraced the cannibalization of children (aka ESCR).  I consider both torture and the cannibalization of children to be gravely and intrinsically evil (as the Church does) and so will not support any candidate who supports them.

So I can assume you’re of the opinion that “the machine has become a monster, too powerful for our human control and that we must wait for God to affect any real political change”?

You can assume all you like, but you’d be wrong. “The machine” is made up of people, and no, people aren’t perfect. No one’s asking for perfection, though. “Not supporting intrinsically evil acts” will suffice for me.

d.r.:

You ask a reasonable question.  My response (following blogger Tom Kreitzberg) is that voting is the stone in the stone soup of civic involvement.  Who I vote for in a President or (less so) senate race will have less effect on the outcome than the movement of molecules in my dashboard will have on an imminent car crash.  But it will have a great effect on me and those around me if I say, “Okay, I’ll support cannibalization of children and unjust war and torture yet again because for 30 years GOP alleged prolifers have been promsing they will get around to doing something and in another 30 years they might.”  From now on, if I vote for a prolifer, his prolife claims will be minimum *condition* of my vote, but will not be *sufficient* for my vote if he doesn’t also reject other intrinsic grave evil.  Bottom line: I will not support grave evil.  Do not do evil that good may come of it.  It’s a basic principle of Catholic moral theology.  If I don’t vote due to a lack of candidates who don’t support evil, I will find some other way to change our political culture, such as, for instance, writing on blogs and persuading (or outraging) people who still live under the illusion that saying “I’m prolife” is a “get out of responsibility for supporting other forms of grave evil” card.  I’m not saying you are saying that.  I’m merely speaking from long experience on the web, which tells me that a great many Catholics *do* think that.

Mark,

I gotta admit - five minutes ago, I downloaded some mp3s of some tunage I haven’t listened to since college and so am now in an auditory-induced state of helpless idealism.  I am currently unable to argue or even critically tweek at your latest comment.

Give me some time to re-collect my thoughts… this may take hours… or days.

Good points, though, good points!

ughhhh… I’m sinking deeper into this beautiful, musical nostalgia….

must- pull- free…

Ok, try this out for a few quick-hitters:

I do not want to argue for or against any particular party here.  So, let me say that although “pro-lifers” have not been able to reverse Roe v. Wade, they HAVE been able to make real pro-life policy that saves real lives.

There are currently some pro-life democrats who voted against the most recent health care bill due to its anti-life tendencies.

There have also been some pro-life republicans who have done things such implement the Mexico City Policy which saves real lives.  (This policy was recently rescinded by Mr. Obama.)

To consider your civic voice to be as meaningless as the “motion of molecules in your dashboard” is to abdicate the most basic civic duty that you, as a citizen, have been given.  Others have stood in the face of ridicule for life and liberty; others have fought and died for our God-given rights; the least *we* can do is vote.

Whatever “pro-life” candidate is deserving or undeserving of a person’s vote is up to that individual; however, that individual should consider it a duty to at least vote and know that there are certain other individuals who CAN NOT vote whose very lives depend in a very real way upon our votes.

I don’t consider my civic voice meaningless.  I merely don’t consider it to consist solely (or even primarily) of my vote.

Mark—OK, you got me on the ESCR issue.  I surrender.  But the Bush-torture issue is something else.  Without rehashing just-war theory, I will simply say I believe there was a huge moral and physical difference between what we did at Guantanamo and what, say, the North Vietnamese did to the likes of John McCain.  Someone (Churchill?  Orwell?) said it well:  “We sleep safely in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do us harm.”  Thank God for those who defend us from evil.

David,

As disgusted as I am by the notion of torture, we do live in an imperfect world and, given the “ticking time bomb scenario,” we *do* sometimes ultimately have to make the decision as to whether we are willing to beat an individual down in order to save the lives of countless other innocent civilians.

Coincidentally, just a few hours ago, as I drove to work, daydreaming over the monotonous, subliminal suggestion of the morning news, I found myself trying to convince myself of the value of the idea that “under no circumstances, ever, should torture be used.”

However, once again reminded of this issue (thank you), I have to admit that the protection of civilians and civilization occasionally calls us to commit less-than-good acts.  Logically, if anyone supports “no torture, ever,” then that same person must also support “no war, ever.”

And, while some choose to ignore the rotten fruits of genocidal and oppressive tyrants, I can not.

I think that as a Catholic and a citizen responsible for the care of the truly weak and disenfranchized, I must continue to support “some torture, sometimes,” as well as “some wars, sometimes.”

Ugly words, I know.

But we live in a world made even uglier by despots and those too afraid to oppose them.

Gee. I thought this was supposed to be a light-hearted post. Oh well. It brought a smile to MY face.

Dang it, Carolyn, you’re right!

I wish there was a way for me to delete all of my previous posts.

Through the course of this conversation, my heart has gotten WAY to heavy for a Friday…

My apologies.

My heart belies the inherent imperfections of my thoughts.

I suppose I am nothing but a funny little man, trying to make sense of this marvelously splendid caucophony about me…

If we shadows have offended,
Think but this, and all is mended,
That you have but slumber’d here
While these visions did appear.
And this weak and idle theme,
No more yielding but a dream,
Gentles, do not reprehend:
if you pardon, we will mend:
And, as I am an honest Puck,
If we have unearned luck
Now to ‘scape the serpent’s tongue,
We will make amends ere long;
Else the Puck a liar call;
So, good night unto you all.
Give me your hands, if we be friends,
And Robin shall restore amends.

—-w.s.

David and d.h:

It was Orwell, an atheist and a loather of the Catholic Church.

Your arguments for torture are common ones.  They are also directly contradicted by our Holy Father, who tells us, “I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”.

“Under any circumstances” means “under *any* circumstances” not “under my super special exceptional circumstances.”  That’s because torture is gravely and intrinsically immoral (per Veritatis Splendor 80) and therefore cannot be justified.

Mark,
I have seen our Father work miracles that defy explanation.  I have seen him heal my life and know that He is capable of anything.  Seeing this, I know that even the problems of nations and a broken world are not beyond the scope of His power.  But then I get back to the grit of raising children, the worry of paying for every supper that we share, the anxiety of filing taxes and awaiting refunds, and the angst of living in a world that misunderstands and maligns the freedoms enjoyed by some of us.  I watch members of my own family confront international challenges that are not too-far-removed from a lot of “hypothetical” (and super-special-exceptional) circumstances.  As I face the realities of a broken world, I must remember that God does work miracles.  I must concern myself with doing His will - always and everywhere.  There are those who must deal with extraordinary situations, but…  aaah!  I must not think too long on those things, for today I just have to pick up a gallon of milk and bathe the kids…

let us think often, write sometimes, but love always.  I’m done for today.  God bless!

Mark—Alas, the issue is not so black-and-white.  Consider the “ticking bomb” scenario:  A terrorist knows when and where a bomb is set to go off, killing hundreds of innocent people.  Would torture by government authorities to extract information from him be wrong?  This reason for inflicting severe pain is conspicuous by its absence from the list of purposes the Catechism says cannot justify torture.

David T- I’m pretty sure that if you read the quote from the Holy Father that Mark uses, it says that “the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances”.  maybe that makes it clear for you, I’m not sure.  Also, name one scenario where that has happened (outside of 24).  Not saying that it is impossible, but it is very unlikely.  Also, have you ever read anything on the effectiveness of torture over other means of interrogation.  I’m not sure if you are aware of this, but there are other methods besides torture of obtaining information from people.  If you want an example of people who obtained information without using torture, read “How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq” by Matthew Alexander.  Granted, this novel does not show a “ticking bomb” scenario that you mentioned, but it was a good example of how to do interrogations humanely.

clarification on my last post, the book I named was not a novel, but was about the author’s experience as an interrogator.

Alex P—I can assure you the ticking-bomb scenario is very real.  It was a big factor in our interrogations in the early days after 9/11 when we didn’t yet know the scope of the enemy’s plans against us.  Yes, we made mistakes, but countless lives were saved because we were able to extract vital information from enemy combatants.  The “soft” techniques espoused by Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym, btw) are not always timely or effective.  Also, let me be clear that the techniques employed at Gitmo (water boarding, sleep deprivation, etc,) were not designed to inflict moral or physical violence, so they probably do not fit the classical definition of torture.  Last, as I understand it, the Church’s position on the use of torture is authoritative but not infallible, therefore Catholics are free to disagree.

Video dudes: Time to buy a de-esser. Sibilance is NOT your friend!

Mark,

So agreeing with what’s in this video on your blog on Friday, I, as a conservative american catholic, get named as a believer of “Americanism” in the your very next blog?  You’re an insane donkey whole.

As a practicing Catholic, I cannot vote on the basis of the lesser of two evils, because in conscience, I feel that cooperating with the lesser of two evils shows that we are relying on human means rather than God’s means by keeping his commandments one hundred percent.
    There are bishops in the Catholic Church that are using terms like formal cooperation with evil and material cooperation with evil with a twist that material cooperation could be allowed if it outweighs the other evil.
    They state that a catholic is allowed to vote for a pro-choice candidate that favors restrictions on abortion instead of the other candidate who opposes the restrictions.
    This would be material cooperation for a greater good that would limit abortion with its restrictions and save many babies which is good.
    In good conscience, I personally feel that even voting for the lesser of two evils is still violating the concept of truth by using evil for achieving a greater good. I believe that we as Catholics and Christens should totally rely on God rather than rely on any degree of evil for the common good.
    I am personally voting, in good conscience, for all third party candidates who are dedicated in carrying out all the commandments of God and who will not cooperate in any degree of evil.
    Lastly, I realize that people will say that to vote for third party candidates is a wasted vote, but I believe that we must have total belief, confidence, and trust in God without compromising His truth.