Tag: moral absolutes

  • The Great Boycott Controversy

    The Great Boycott Controversy

    I recently initiated a boycott of Gilbert Magazine, not because I dislike the magazine but, on the contrary, because I love it (though I recognize its failings) and I love the American Chesterton Society (ACS). I love these institutions in much the same way that I love the United States of America and in much the same way that I love my alma mater, the University of Notre Dame. I do not love them because of their perfection but, rather, I love them because of their potential good, their potential beauty and even because of the beauty and goodness that has been, hoping that it may be again. I love them with their failings.  In fact, I love them so much that I am willing to expose their failings to the light of day.  I am eager to love them in a manly way and I fear any failure of love that may manifest itself in the form of indifference.  So, in the case of Gilbert Magazine and the ACS  my love took the form of a boycott.

    The occasion that gave rise to this action of love was the editorial by Dale Ahlquist in an issue of Gilbert Magazine published in the months leading up to the recent presidential election (“Why I Won’t Vote for Mitt Romney”, May/June 2012).  I laid out my objections to Mr. Ahlquist’s editorial in another article here at A Sensible Life so I will not say much more about it in this piece other than to say that I found it impossible to get through to folks at the ACS without resorting to the step that I eventually took, the Boycott.  The good news is that the Boycott had an almost immediate positive effect.  I was able to get the attention of some folks at the ACS.  The Boycott engendered some conversation on Mark Shea’s blog as well as on the ACS blog and the ACS Facebook page.  Unfortunately, the folks with whom I interacted remain entrenched in their support of Mr. Ahlquist’s position.

    Let me just say that though I find Mr. Ahlquist’s position poorly reasoned and indefensible, I would not normally make a public objection to an individual’s privately held belief.  The problem with Mr. Ahlquist’s error is manifestly that it is not a private error but one that he made publicly not only in his own name but also “for the editorial board of Gilbert Magazine“.  In effect, he relied upon his position on the editorial board of the magazine and as president of the ACS to attempt to sway readers away from a sensible approach to our 2012 elections.  Rather than remaining silent or, better yet, encouraging Gilbert readers to actively support the candidate on the correct side (if not absolutely correct, then most certainly correct on a relative basis compared to his opponent) of the great moral absolutes of our day (marriage, life, religious freedom), Mr. Ahlquist led those who would follow him to disregard their civic duty.

    In the somewhat jovial though serious debate that ensued as a result of the Boycott, Mr. Shea and other Ahlquist/ACS supporters objected strenuously to my objection but their objections can broadly be summarized in two points: (a) Gilbert Magazine and Mr. Ahlquist have minimal influence in this country and (b) Mr. Romney was a flawed candidate (a point to which I stipulated over and over again).  I don’t know which of these objections I found more troubling.  The first indicates to me a frivolousness (and by that I do not mean Chestertonian frivolity!) that is unbecoming of an organization founded upon the memory and thought of the great apologist and social/political commentator, G. K. Chesterton.  I cannot imagine Chesterton taking a controversial position and then when that position runs into some public resistance, tucking his tail between his legs and saying, “well it doesn’t really matter what I say because no-one reads what I have to say anyway”.  Further, this frivolous response to my objections seems to me to indicate a failure on the part of  Gilbert Magazine  and the ACS to embrace the significance of the role they could (and frequently do) play in reclaiming our culture and society and the positive impact they could have in the public square.  I am glad they had some fun with the Boycott but I am disappointed that to a certain extent their fun became a cover for their inability to defend an indefensible position.

    With regard to the second point the Ahlquist/ACS defenders raised, the faults of Mr. Romney as a candidate, I can only say that I found it to be a red herring.  Of course, Mr. Romney was a flawed candidate.  However, this objection merely served to attempt to distract the conversation away from the fact that they were unwilling to act positively to remove President Obama from office.  In all the dialogues in which I engaged, none of the Ahlquist/ACS crowd was willing to admit the obvious: no matter how bad a candidate Mr. Romney was, he was substantively better than President Obama on all three of the great moral absolutes facing us this election cycle (defense of real marriage, protection of innocent life and protection of religious liberty).  Why did they refuse to acknowledge this reality?  I fear it is because of an ideological bias against Mr. Romney’s party.  I also fear there is a substantial contingency within the ACS that appears to hate the Republican Party so much that it is unwilling to ally itself with the Republicans in order to save the lives of innocent children, save the institution of marriage in our country and safeguard our religious freedoms.  I realize Mr. Romney would likely not have done all we could hope in any of these areas.  But there is no doubt that as a result of having President Obama in office for another four years we will lose more lives of innocent unborns that we would otherwise have done; our religious liberties will be further eroded; and marriage will suffer greater and more powerful attack.

    Herein lie the reasons behind the Great Boycott. I wanted to awaken Gilbert Magazine, the ACS and Mr. Ahlquist to their responsibilities as the foremost commentators on Chestertonian thought in the United States.  Have fun, by all means but do not be frivolous!  Also, I would like to see the ACS work with others of us out here in the hinterlands to educate the American public in authentic Catholic social teaching.  For too long Catholic social teaching has been misconstrued in such a way that it has led many men and women of good will to believe in progressivism.  Progressivism and big government control of social programs are not authentic manifestations of Catholic social teaching.  A proper understanding of gratuitousness, freedom, responsibility, subsidiarity and solidarity will lead us to a distributed approach to dealing with the needs of our brothers and sisters and with our economic activity.  These concepts will lead us away from a focus on centralized government.

    Let us unite in guiding and informing our society.  Let us have fun doing it but let us be serious about it.  Let us be willing to work for small victories (like defeating President Obama) when no greater victory is within our grasp!

    “Reason is always a kind of brute force; those who appeal to the head rather than the heart, however pallid and polite, are necessarily men of violence. We speak of ‘touching’ a man’s heart, but we can do nothing to his head but hit it.” (GKC) Hence, the Great Boycott…

  • Bishop Speaks on the Moral Obligations of Voters

    Bishop Speaks on the Moral Obligations of Voters

    Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield in Illinois has provided some beautiful clarity with regard to our moral obligations in the upcoming presidential election.  He speaks of intrinsic evil and warns us of the consequences of our actions in voting.  I encourage you to watch this video:

    Bishop on Moral Obligation of Voters

    Wow!

  • Presidential Campaign

    Presidential Campaign

    I launched A Sensible Life back in June with the intent to write about authentic Catholic social teaching: gratuitousness, solidarity, subsidiarity and a distributed economy. My intent was and is to cover these subjects from a theoretical and practical standpoint. I want to write about public policy relative to these topics as well as writing about down to earth ways we can live these principles in our families and in the larger economy.

    These topics still serve as the primary reason of being for A Sensible Life. Unfortunately, as I was launching A Sensible Life I failed to take into account the fact that we were entering into the prime season for what one could reasonably call the most important presidential campaign in the last several generations. Because of this presidential campaign, I have allowed myself to focus the attention of A Sensible Life on politics more than I would have otherwise liked. Please be patient with us. I will steer the ship back to more weighty and interesting matters. However, pardon me if I spend some more time now and in the next few weeks on the more imminent issues surrounding the presidential campaign.

    That said, I feel the need to lay the cards on the table. Here goes. There is no moral or rational posturing that can justify a Catholic or other person of good will in not supporting Mitt Romney for president. That is to say, it is our moral obligation not only to vote against Barack Obama but to vote for Mitt Romney. How can I say that with absolute certainty? Here is how.

    Moral absolutes: The first issues we must examine as discerning Christian electors are those non-negotiable issues involving intrinsic moral good and intrinsic moral evil. The moral absolutes at stake in this presidential election include: the defense of life from birth to natural death, the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and the protection of each individual’s freedoms of religion and conscience. These are issues that touch upon the most basic rights of men and women in this country. They are incontrovertible and they trump all other issues.

    On each one of these issues Mitt Romney’s position is without any question or doubt better than that of his opponent. His statements support this conclusion as do his actions. No amount of equivocating will get around this fact. No matter how many people repeat, “well, Romney isn’t perfect on these issues either”, the fact remains that Mitt Romney is substantively better on these issues. No amount of cynicism about the honesty of politicians will relieve us of the moral burden of acting upon this reality.

    Matters of prudential judgment: There are other issues that women and men of good will may debate. These matters, subject to the conclusions of our well-formed prudent judgments, can include important issues like the death penalty, the most just and prudent way to engage in international policy and the application of Catholic social teaching to domestic policy. In a presidential election, these are important issues and should be issues upon which we form our political decisions so long as the are not trumped by issues of a higher magnitude.

    However, in this particular presidential election all issues are trumped by those involving the moral absolutes. And, what is more, there may never have been an election like this one in the history of the United States: an election (a) that involved so many questions concerning moral good and evil and (b) in which there was so much clarity on each of these questions with regard to the positions of each of the candidates.

    I just want to say one more thing about issues involving prudential judgment and that has to do with the question of Catholic social teaching. Many Catholics have taken the position during this presidential campaign that we are justified in voting for or even obligated to vote for Barack Obama because of what he has done with government money and policy in support of the poor. First, as I have said above, matters of prudential judgment cannot trump matters of moral imperative. However, this fact aside, these folks are simply wrong in their understanding of Catholic social teaching. Catholic social teaching (and Christian charity) tells us that we must care for those in need (the poor, the sick, the weak). We do not fulfill this obligation by passing it along to the government. To the extent the government takes my tax dollars to care for my brother, it robs me both of my freedom and my responsibility. Moreover, such activity by the national government is in direct opposition to the Christian principle of subsidiarity. This principle states (for purposes of this conversation) that the needy must be cared for by those closest to them; their brothers or very local institutions. The national government not only bungles such work but it de-humanizes the recipients of its efforts and robs others of the opportunity to fulfill their obligations in Christian charity.

    In summary, there is no case in support of Barack Obama. On the contrary, we are morally obligated to oppose him and to support his opponent, Mitt Romney.

  • Paul Ryan and True Catholic Social Teaching

    Paul Ryan and True Catholic Social Teaching

    The article following was published by Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison in the diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Herald. Bishop Morlino provides a wonderfully clear exposition of the distinction between those burning issues of our day that involve intrinsic evil and those issues that are merely matters of prudential judgment. The former, of course, should be non-negotiables for all Catholics and with regard to many of these non-negotiables we Catholics share our beliefs with our Jewish and Protestant brothers and sisters as well. Bishop Morlino goes on to discuss some other issues that could be considered matters of prudential judgment. But he does not leave us to fend for ourselves in working through these issues. He writes about the use of the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity in working through questions such as how to deal with poverty and a stagnant economy. These principles are near and dear to the heart of A Sensible Life! The answer, my friends, is not a bigger, more oppressive national government. The good bishop stops short of endorsing Paul Ryan and his running mate Mitt Romney but clearly the Romney/Ryan ticket is the option for those who take true Catholic Social Teach seriously.

    Subsidiarity, solidarity, and the lay mission

    Bishop’s Column

    Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012 — 12:00 AM

    Dear friends,

    It was no shock at all for me to learn that our diocesan native son, Paul Ryan, had been chosen to be a candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States. I am proud of his accomplishments as a native son, and a brother in the faith, and my prayers go with him and especially with his family as they endure the unbelievable demands of a presidential campaign here in the United States. It is not for the bishop or priests to endorse particular candidates or political parties. Any efforts on the part of any bishop or priest to do so should be set aside. And you can be assured that no priest who promotes a partisan agenda is acting in union with me or with the Universal Church.

    It is the role of bishops and priests to teach principles of our faith, such that those who seek elected offices, if they are Catholics, are to form their consciences according to these principles about particular policy issues.

    However, the formation of conscience regarding particular policy issues is different depending on how fundamental to the ecology of human nature or the Catholic faith a particular issue is. Some of the most fundamental issues for the formation of a Catholic conscience are as follows: sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, marriage, religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and a right to private property.

    Violations of the above involve intrinsic evil — that is, an evil which cannot be justified by any circumstances whatsoever. These evils are examples of direct pollution of the ecology of human nature and can be discerned as such by human reason alone. Thus, all people of good will who wish to follow human reason should deplore any and all violations in the above areas, without exception. The violations would be: abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, government-coerced secularism, and socialism.

    Where intrinsic evil is not involved

    In these most fundamental matters, a well-formed Catholic conscience, or the well-formed conscience of a person of good will, simply follows the conclusions demanded by the ecology of human nature and the reasoning process. A Catholic conscience can never take exception to the prohibition of actions which are intrinsically evil. Nor may a conscience well-formed by reason or the Catholic faith ever choose to vote for someone who clearly, consistently, persistently promotes that which is intrinsically evil.

    However, a conscience well-formed according to reason or the Catholic faith, must also make choices where intrinsic evil is not involved. How best to care for the poor is probably the finest current example of this, though another would be how best to create jobs at a time when so many are suffering from the ravages of unemployment. In matters such as these, where intrinsic evil is not involved, the rational principles of solidarity and subsidiarity come into play. The principle of solidarity, simply stated, means that every human being on the face of the earth is my brother and my sister, my “neighbor” in the biblical sense. At the same time, the time-tested best way for assisting our neighbors throughout the world should follow the principle of subsidiarity. That means the problem at hand should be addressed at the lowest level possible — that is, the level closest to the people in need. That again, is simply the law of human reason.

    We can disagree on application

    As one looks at issues such as the two mentioned above and seeks to apply the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, Catholics and others of good will can arrive at different conclusions. These are conclusions about the best means to promote the preferential option for the poor, or the best means to reach a lower percentage of unemployment throughout our country. No one is contesting here anyone’s right to the basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc. Nor is anyone contesting someone’s right to work and so provide for self and family. However there can be difference according to how best to follow the principles which the Church offers.

    Making decisions as to the best political strategies, the best policy means, to achieve a goal, is the mission of lay people, not bishops or priests. As Pope Benedict himself has said, a just society and a just state is the achievement of politics, not the Church. And therefore Catholic laymen and women who are familiar with the principles dictated by human reason and the ecology of human nature, or non-Catholics who are also bound by these same principles, are in a position to arrive at differing conclusions as to what the best means are for the implementation of these principles — that is, “lay mission” for Catholics.

    Thus, it is not up to me or any bishop or priest to approve of Congressman Ryan’s specific budget prescription to address the best means we spoke of. Where intrinsic evils are not involved, specific policy choices and political strategies are the province of Catholic lay mission. But, as I’ve said, Vice Presidential Candidate Ryan is aware of Catholic Social Teaching and is very careful to fashion and form his conclusions in accord with the principles mentioned above. Of that I have no doubt. (I mention this matter in obedience to Church Law regarding one’s right to a good reputation.)

    Peace and reconciliation in coming months

    I obviously didn’t choose the date for the announcement of Paul Ryan’s Vice Presidential Candidacy and as I express my pride in him and in what he has accomplished, I thought it best to move to discussion of the above matters sooner rather than later. No doubt it will be necessary to comment again on these principles in the days ahead for the sake of further clarification, and be assured that I will be eager to do so.

    Above all, let us beg the Lord that divisions in our electorate will not be deepened so as to have a negative impact on pre-existing divisions within the Church during this electoral season. Let there be the peace and reconciliation that flow from charity on the part of all. Thank you for reading this. God Bless each one of you! Praised be Jesus Christ!

    * * * * *

    I love this exposition of real Catholic doctrine and true Catholic social teaching. We must overcome the insipid misunderstanding of Catholic social teaching that has been allowed to characterize American Catholic political philosophy for the last fifty years. Big government and government run social programs exist in opposition to legitimate Catholic social teaching not in support of it. Government programs rob individuals of both their freedoms and their responsibilities as defined by sound Catholic social teaching. Paul Ryan understands this reality and Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate is a great indicator of his prescience as well. For too long have lukewarm Catholics been given a pass to vote for politicians who oppose essential Catholic moral teaching. It’s over folks! We have no choice but to vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Gone are the days when we can justify bad political decision-making by a misplaced adherence to a misunderstood Catholic social teaching.

  • Why Dale Ahlquist is Wrong about Mitt Romney

    Why Dale Ahlquist is Wrong about Mitt Romney

    Dale Ahlquist is dead wrong and we have a duty to support Mitt Romney and the Republican Party in the upcoming general election. Here at A Sensible Life we cannot shy away from pointing out error, even when expressed by one whom we otherwise hold in high regard.

    I was saddened to see Dale Ahlquist’s editorial in the May/June issue of Gilbert Magazine. As his thesis Mr. Ahlquist asserted that he would not vote for Mitt Romney in the upcoming presidential election. I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Ahlquist. Unfortunately, I found his reasoning in this case very weak and his conclusion to be both dangerous and unsound.

    Mr. Ahlquist spent much of his editorial describing how George Bush became the Republican Party nominee for president in 2000 and dedicated additional space listing the deficiencies of the Bush presidency, ignoring the pro-life, pro-freedom successes of that same presidency. He admits his cynicism toward the Republican Party. Perhaps his uncurbed cynicism has blinds him to the real differences between the only two parties in this country who have any possibility of winning a presidential election. His uncurbed cynicism leads also to his unsupported assertion that the nomination of Mitt Romney is, “all about money.”

    Mr. Ahlquist justly draws a parallel between the big business tendencies of the Republican Party and the big government tendencies of the Democrat Party. He also points out, correctly, that the Republican Party has contributed to the expansion of government rather than succeeding in reducing its scope. However, in the interest of making his case, Mr. Ahlquist overstates the role of Republican Party in growing government. He also ignores the support from the Republican Party for small business and fails to recognize that it is always the Democrat Party that pushes hardest for government expansion and that the Republican Party when in power generally slows or stops the growth, though rarely succeeding in actually reducing government reach. He also ignores the profound differences between the parties with regard to political philosophy; differences to be seen in the Republican view of the Constitution as an enshrinement of individuals’ rights and a curb to government power. This view of the Constitution is most evident in Republicans’ appointments to the courts, which for the most part have been excellent in the last thirty years. There have been some disappointments in this area but no Democrat would ever have appointed Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito or Antonin Scalia.

    All of this said, the most glaring and disappointing deficiency in Mr. Ahlquist’s editorial is his failure to recognize the importance of the upcoming general election in the context of the ongoing battle for the soul of our country. He fails altogether to draw any distinction between the two viable parties in our country with regard to issues such as the secularization of the political philosophy of our national government, defense of life, protection of marriage, human freedom, freedom of conscience, regulatory and tax burdens on small business, etc. Is Mitt Romney perfect on these issues? No rational and informed individual would claim that he is. However, there are members of Congress who understand what needs to be done in these areas and stand ready to do so. Mitt Romney may not be the boldest leader on all the issues that lie before us but mark this well, without a Republican in the White House (and Romney is our only option at this point) there is absolutely no chance that the good men and women whom we have elected to Congress will make any progress on the road to fixing the ills of our country.

    It is an impoverished view of our civic responsibility to suggest that because we do not wholly agree with the results of the nomination process we will refuse to vote in the general election (or we will vote for some unelectable third party candidate).

    I cannot state this too strongly, a vote for President Obama is a vote for the current steep downward trajectory of our country; a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for a presidency that will at worst decrease this trajectory and a presidency that has the potential (even if that potential be slim) to turn the trajectory upward. Make no mistake about it, to fail to vote for Mitt Romney in November is to cast half a vote for President Obama. This truth remains, no matter how loudly you claim non- support of the current administration.

    Mr. Ahlquist to many stands as the arbiter of Chestertonian thought in the United States. It saddens me that he would publicly take this position and by doing so potentially draw many votes away from a much-needed victory in the battle for the American soul. Don’t forget, Mr. Ahlquist, God can write straight even with bent instruments like Mitt Romney and you and me. I will close with a remark of Chesterton’s from What’s Wrong with the World, “Men have never wearied of political justice; they have wearied of waiting for it.” Please do not weary of waiting for political justice here in the United States. And please do not express weariness, despair and cynicism by failing to do all necessary to replace the current secular administration with one that holds a brighter potential.