Opposing Evil AND Doing Good

Like many other Catholics, this election has been causing me a great deal of angst. The battle in the pews over single issues is at a fever pitch in my parish.

I was able to find some comfort in the this joint statement I just recieved from the USCCB offices of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities and the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development. I think I will let the statement speak for itself.

Joint Statement by
Cardinal Justin Rigali
Chairman, Committee on Pro-Life Activities
and
Bishop William Murphy
Chairman, Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

October 21, 2008

In Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (2007), the Catholic bishops of the United States urged Catholic voters to form their consciences in accord with the Church’s moral teaching. We emphasized that: “Both opposing evil and doing good are essential obligations” (No. 24). Unfortunately, there seem to be efforts and voter education materials designed to persuade Catholics that they need only choose one approach: either opposing evil or doing good. This is not an authentically Catholic approach.

Some argue that we should not focus on policies that provide help for pregnant women, but just focus on the essential task of establishing legal protections for children in the womb. Others argue that providing life-affirming support for pregnant women should be our only focus and this should take the place of efforts to establish legal protections for unborn children. We want to be clear that neither argument is consistent with Catholic teaching. Our faith requires us to oppose abortion on demand and to provide help to mothers facing challenging pregnancies.

In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision knocked down laws against abortion in all 50 states, fabricating a constitutional “right” to abortion that continues to haunt and divide our society. Within two days of that decision, the Catholic bishops rejected it as “bad morality, bad medicine and bad public policy.” We called for a comprehensive response: exploring “every legal possibility” for challenging the Court’s tragic error and restoring legal safeguards for the right to life of the unborn child; helping to pass laws to “restrict the practice of abortion as much as possible” in the meantime; and educating society to the need to safeguard the child and support “more humane and morally acceptable solutions” for women facing problems during pregnancy.

Recently, some have called on the Church to abandon most of this effort. They say we should accept Roe as a permanent fixture of constitutional law, stop trying to restore recognition for the unborn child’s human rights, and confine our public advocacy to efforts to “reduce abortions” through improved economic and social support for women and families.

The Catholic community is second to no one in providing and advocating for support for women and families facing problems during pregnancy. Catholic hospitals, charitable institutions, and thousands of pregnancy aid centers, provide life-saving care and compassionate alternatives to the violence of abortion. We have advocated for universal health care coverage, generous family leave policies, increases in the minimum wage, humane welfare policies for women who are pregnant or caring for young children, expanded funding for WIC and other nutrition programs, and a federal children’s health insurance program that includes coverage for unborn children and their mothers. Because some women still feel pressured by economic hardship and lack of support to resort to abortion, our task in this regard is far from over.

These efforts, however, are not an adequate or complete response to the injustice of Roe v. Wade for several important reasons. First, the Court’s decision in Roe denied an entire class of innocent human beings the most fundamental human right, the right to life. In fact, the act of killing these fellow human beings was transformed from a crime into a “right,” turning the structure of human rights on its head. Roe v. Wade is a clear case of an “intrinsically unjust law” we are morally obliged to oppose (see Evangelium vitae, nos. 71-73). Reversing it is not a mere political tactic, but a moral imperative for Catholics and others who respect human life.

Second, the many challenges to the Court’s error since 1973 have borne fruit, leading to significant modifications of Roe. Most recently in its ruling on partial-birth abortion, the Court upheld a ban on an abortion procedure for the first time in 35 years, and acknowledged that abortion takes a human life and does serious harm to women.
Third, Roe itself enormously increased the annual number of abortions in our society. The law is a teacher, and Roe taught many women, physicians and others that abortion is an acceptable answer to a wide range of problems. By the same token, even the limited pro-life laws allowed by the Court since Roe have been shown to reduce abortions substantially, leading to a steady decline in the abortion rate since 1980. Bans on public funding, laws requiring informed consent for women and parental involvement for minors, and other modest and widely supported laws have saved millions of lives. Laws made possible by reversing Roe would save many more. On the other hand, this progress could be lost through a key pro-abortion proposal, the “Freedom of Choice Act,” which supporters say would knock down hundreds of current pro-life laws and forbid any public program to “discriminate” against abortion in providing services to women.
Providing support for pregnant women so they choose to have their babies is a necessary but not sufficient response to abortion. Similarly, reversal of Roe is a necessary but not sufficient condition for restoring an order of justice in our society’s treatment of defenseless human life. This act by itself would not automatically grant legal protection to the unborn. It would remove an enormous obstacle to such protection, so the people of the United States and their elected representatives in every state could engage in a genuine discussion of how to save unborn children and their mothers from the tragedy of abortion. Both approaches to opposing abortion are essential. By protecting the child’s life to the maximum degree possible, improving life-affirming support for pregnant women, and changing the attitudes and prejudices imposed on many women to make them see abortion as an acceptable or necessary solution, we will truly help build a culture of life.
In light of a wide range of attempts to interpret Church teaching or imply that outside materials represent the teaching of the Church, we wish to affirm that Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship is the teaching that has been approved by the body of bishops of the United States. As we explained in that statement, “We encourage Catholics to seek those resources that are authorized by their own bishops, their state Catholic conferences, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

A Clear Statement on the Iraq War from the Catholic Church

Finally...



Donate now to help Pax Christi USA run this ad as a TV spot before the election.

U.S. Bishops' Statement on War in Iraq

11/14/2007 - 23:15 PST

"Our Nation and Its Leaders Face Important Decisions"

BALTIMORE, Maryland, NOV. 14, 2007 (Zenit) - Here is the statement of Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane, president of the U.S. episcopal conference, on the war in Iraq. The statement was affirmed Tuesday by the fall meeting of the U.S. bishops, under way in Baltimore.

* * *

Our nation and its leaders face important decisions about the difficult challenges and terrible dilemmas in Iraq. As the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops gathers in Baltimore, our thoughts and prayers are with our military personnel in Iraq, their families, and all the suffering people of Iraq. In this statement we seek to draw on our moral teaching to continue raising some ethical questions regarding the road ahead for our nation in Iraq.

Our Church both ministers among our troops and shares deep spiritual ties to the Church and people in Iraq. Pope Benedict XVI in his Urbi et Orbi Easter message of 2007 focused the world’s attention on Iraq, a nation “torn apart by continual slaughter.” As pastors and teachers, we are convinced that the current situation in Iraq remains unacceptable and unsustainable. Our Conference offers once again the goal of a “responsible transition” as an overall ethical framework for national decisions.

The dangerous political stalemate in Iraq that blocks national reconciliation finds a parallel in our own nation. We are alarmed by the political and partisan stalemate in Washington. Some policy makers seem to fail to recognize sufficiently the reality and failures in Iraq and the imperative for new directions. Others seem to fail to recognize sufficiently the potential human consequences of very rapid withdrawal. These two forms of denial have helped contribute to partisan paralysis.

As pastors, we have called for bipartisan action for almost two years. Our country needs a new direction to reduce the war’s deadly toll and to bring our people together to deal with the conflict’s moral and human dimensions. Our nation needs a new bipartisan approach to Iraq policy based on honest and civil dialogue. Our Conference encourages our national leaders to focus on the morally and politically demanding, but carefully limited goal of fostering a “responsible transition” and withdrawal at the earliest opportunity consistent with that goal. The moral demands of this path begin with addressing the humanitarian crisis in Iraq and minimizing further loss of human life.

We do not have specific competence in political, economic and military strategies and do not assess particular tactics, but we can, as teachers, share a moral tradition to help inform policy choices. Our Catholic teaching on war and peace offers hard questions, not easy answers. Our nation must now focus more on the ethics of exit than on the ethics of intervention. The grave moral concerns we and others raised prior to the war now give way to new moral questions. In the current situation the traditional principles of “noncombatant immunity” and “probability of success” suggest these questions: How can we minimize the further loss of human lives? What actions will do the most good and least harm? What elements of a responsible transition are attainable? How can they be achieved? What actions should be avoided? How can decision makers take into account both the realities and setbacks in Iraq and the likely human consequences of rapid withdrawal? What are the financial costs and global consequences of continued war and occupation? And, how can our nation effectively counter the perversion of religion and ideologies that support terrorism, which in all cases merits condemnation?

Catholic teaching has long held that peace is more than the absence of war; it is built on the foundation of justice. This moral insight means that building a just peace in Iraq requires far more than military action; it demands a comprehensive political, diplomatic and economic effort.

This effort begins in Iraq, but it does not end there. For this reason, we believe sustained U.S. efforts to collaborate with the other nations, including Syria and Iran, are critically important for bringing some measure of stability to Iraq.

The responsibility for stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq rests primarily with Iraqis, but the United States as well as other nations have a practical and moral obligation to act. Given the extensive devastation in Iraq, the U.S. has a unique and inescapable obligation to continue to offer major and continuing support for economic development and reconstruction. Respect for Iraqi self determination suggests that our nation should reiterate our pledge not to seek permanent military bases in Iraq, nor control over Iraqi oil resources.

A neglected policy priority is the dire situation of refugees outside the country, internally displaced persons within Iraq, Christians and other vulnerable minorities. The suffering of the Christian community has a particular claim on our hearts and consciences. We remain in solidarity with the suffering Catholic Church in Iraq and welcome with joy the naming of Chaldean Patriarch Emmanuel-Karim Delly of Baghdad to the College of Cardinals by our Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI.

We recognize that Christians are not alone in their plight and we reiterate our concern for the whole of the Iraqi people. A staggering two million refugees have fled Iraq; another two million Iraqis are internally displaced. The U.S. should immediately make more substantial commitments to Iraqi refugees by expanding admissions, eliminating roadblocks to resettlement, and supporting countries in the region burdened with war-related refugee populations. Extensive aid should be provided to internally displaced persons. The protection and promotion of human rights, especially religious freedom, in Iraq remain critically important.

Iraq’s future stability is related to the stability of the region. This is why U.S. leadership to advance a just peace for Israelis and Palestinians is critical. The continuing failure to achieve the vision of two states living side by side in peace and justice contributes to regional instability.

Real progress toward a fair and just Israeli-Palestinian agreement would help the region and deprive extremists of a cause they exploit to promote hate and violence. In a recent letter to Secretary of State Rice our Conference has also expressed deep concern regarding the difficult situation involving our nation, the international community and Iran, and has urged caution, determination, and restraint in the use of force. The volatile situations in Pakistan and Afghanistan also raise significant moral questions and require urgent attention if regional stability is to be enhanced.

In all military actions, ethical norms require protecting civilians, using proportionate and discriminate force, rejecting torture, and fighting terrorism with nonmilitary means and the legitimate use of force when necessary. This is morally essential and also necessary for winning hearts and minds, especially in the struggle against terrorism.

Our concern for human life and dignity extends to the members of our own military. We support those who risk their lives in the service of our nation and recognize their generous commitment. U.S. policy must take into account the growing costs and consequences of a continued occupation on military personnel, their families and our nation. There is a moral obligation to deal with the human, medical, mental health and social costs of military action. Our nation must also make provisions for those who in conscience exercise their right to conscientious objection or selective conscientious objection.

Each course of action in Iraq should be weighed in light of the traditional moral principle of “probability of success.” In other words, will the action contribute to a “responsible transition” and withdrawal as soon as appropriate and possible? This principle requires our nation’s leaders to be more realistic about the difficult situation in Iraq and more concerned about the likely consequences of a withdrawal that is too rapid or not rapid enough.

The morally and politically demanding, but carefully limited goal of responsible transition should aim to reduce further loss of life and to address the humanitarian crisis in Iraq, the refugee crisis in the region, the need to help rebuild the country, and human rights, especially religious freedom.

We call on Catholics and others to persist in praying for peace and those most effected by the war and to engage these moral questions. To help our people reflect on the war, Bishop Thomas G. Wenski, the Chairman of our Committee on International Policy, has prepared a summary of our Conference’s perspectives on the war in question-and-answer format.

All of us must struggle with these moral questions, but in a particular way, our Conference and individual bishops will continue to engage policy makers on the moral and human dimensions of this conflict. We pray and hope that policy makers begin to work together on a bipartisan basis to bring an end to this war and occupation at the earliest opportunity consistent with the limited goal of a responsible transition and the protection of human lives -- Iraqi and American.

The Current Just War Debate

Surprisingly to many of us, after four years and the disproval of many if not all of the original justifications for the war in Iraq the debate over whether or not this was and is a just war continues particularly among Catholics. Recently two articles squared off.

One by George Weigel published in the April Edition of First Things in continued support of the war:

The other by Msgr. McElroy published at the same time Commonweal critical of those, particularly Mr. Weigel, who continue to support the war.

Below is a very good commentary on both (emphasis added). Although the author is admittedly biased toward Msgr. McElroy, I believe he provides an accurate account of each side. No matter where one may stand on this issue it is important to review opposing views critically but fairly perhaps then we may come to a consensus and work together to bring this war just or unjust to a just conclusion.

A Catholic Debate Mounts on the Meaning of ‘Just War’

Written by Peter Steinfels for the NY Times

For over four years, George Weigel, staunch supporter of President Bush and biographer of Pope John Paul II, has never ceased to insist that the war in Iraq meets all the traditional moral criteria for a just war. And most leaders and thinkers among Mr. Weigel’s fellow Roman Catholics, along with many non-Catholic proponents of just-war thinking, have never ceased to disagree.

Now there is a fresh surge m this de­bate, with combat concentrated not only on how to apply these venerable moral prin­ciples to this particular war but also on how the principles should be understood in the first place. Mr. Weigel delivers the latest rendition of his case in the April issue of First Things, an interreligious neoconservative monthly. At sharp odds is an editorial in the April20 issue of the liberal Commonweal, edited by Catholic lay people (where this writer was an editor in the 1980s).

Still another view is offered by Msgr. Robert W. McElroy, a pastor in San Mateo, Calif., who is the author of “Morality and American Foreign Poli­cy: The Role of Ethics in International Affairs,” published by Princeton University Press in 1992. His article is scheduled for publication in the April30 issue of the Jesuit-edited weekly America.

(The Commonweal editorial and America article, both obtained in advance, will be posted on the magazines’ Web sites next Monday and Friday, respectively.)

Just-war theory considers a war morally justified only if it is fought for a just cause as a last resort by a legitimate authority acting with good intentions. The war must have a reasonable chance of success and of not doing more harm than good, and it should be conducted by moral means, avoiding, for example, deliberate attacks on civilians.

Mr. Weigel’s elucidation of this moral tradition has been notable for two emphases. For years, he has scolded the Catholic bishops and other just-war proponents for claiming that the teaching begins with “a presumption against war.” On the contrary, Mr. Weigel has argued, the “classic” doctrine treated war not as a moral anomaly that had to run a gantlet of moral tests before it could be justified but as “a moral category,” a neutral instrument of statecraft that could be used for good or ill. The tradition should never be removed from the obligation of nations (like the United States in Iraq) to assure security, justice and freedom.

Second, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Weigel insisted that religious leaders should exercise “political modesty” in the public debate, recognizing that government officials “are more fully informed about the relevant facts.” Employ­ing the term “charism,” usually associated with saints who founded religious orders, he proposed that government officials enjoyed a “charism of political discernment” that was “not shared by bishops, stated clerks, rabbis, imams, or ecumenical and interreligious agencies.”

The thrust of these emphases was of course to undercut the moral objections of many religious leaders about the potential human and political costs of invading Iraq.

In his latest essay, Mr. Weigel grapples with~ the fact that those costs have become painfully evident, and the larger concerns of security, jus­tice and freedom increasingly elusory. Now his case for war scarcely mentions the earlier suspi­cion of weapons of mass destruction but stresses a need to defeat jihadi terrorism and establish re­sponsible government and peace throughout the Middle East.

He laments “mistakes made by analysts and U.S. policy makers,” who remain unidentified except for the “convenient scapegoat,” Donald H. Rumsfeld. Finally, he defends the administra­tion’s latest strategy against an alternative that he defines simply as “we’re out.”

In all this, he merely alludes to his earlier cri­tique of the “presumption against war” and makes no mention of the “charism Of political dis­cernment.” But his animus toward antiwar reli­gious leaders is unabated.

Which is what struck the editors of Commonweal, who have consistently opposed the war. In contrast to the second thoughts of many liberals originally convinced of the Iraq war’s necessity, the editors note, “no such admissions of error, or even regret, have been issued by outspoken Catholic neoconservatives.” Does Mr. Weigel’s long list of American miscalculations, they wonder,

“cast doubt on his claim” about the government’s “charism of political discernment”? Reviewing the prudential warnings and moral qualms by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, “it is hard not to conclude,” the editors write “that the bishops’ charism, rather than the president’s, has better served the nation.”

Both Commonweal and Monsignor McElroy in America magazine, deny that given the potential destructiveness of modern warfare, just war teaching has been deformed by making a “presumption against war” its starting point. To reject this development, Monsignor McElroy writes, reduces “a living, breathing moral tradition” to “a historical artifact.”

“One implication of this strong presumption against war,” Monsignor McElroy adds, is that “moral scrutiny of the decision to wage war should take place not merely at the beginning of a conflict, but at every stage of its duration.”

He examines, for instance, how the Iraq War’s stated cause has shifted from the imminent threat posed by an aggressive dictator’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction to “transformational democratization,” whether limited to Iraq or extended (as in Mr. Weigel’s vision) to the whole Middle East. “But transformational democratization falls outside the criteria of the just cause as it has been formulated in the modern age,” he writes.

Looking at the traditional criterion of proportionality, Monsignor McElroy notes that supporters of the invasion once emphasized how “the complexities of war and geopolitics” made it impossible to predict whether the evils of war would outweigh good. But now, he writes “these same advocates” cast aside “epistemic modesty” and insist with certainty “that American withdrawal would be a catastrophic blow to peace and just order in the world.”

For Commonweal, the record has thoroughly discredited Mr. Weigel’s version of just war thinking. For Monsignor McElroy, “any effort to apply rigorous just-war thinking”— presumably not Mr. Weigel’s — dictates moving immediately “toward a measured and prudently crafted American military withdrawal.” For Mr. Weigel, such notions amount to an abandonment “the mantle of moral seriousness.”

Catholic Peace Fellowship Off to the Vatican

Just as Dorothy Day and the early organizers of Pax Christi USA traveled to Rome in 1962 to meet with members of the Second Vatican Council, a delegation from the Catholic Peace Fellowship will shortly be off to Rome as well to meet with members of the Vatican including the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faithful. Dorothy Day and her delegation were successful in having the following lines inserted into Gaudium et spes (The Church in the modern world):

“Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and humanity which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”

The Catholic Peace Fellowship will be asking for clearer statements in the Catechism supporting conscientious objectors. See below for their specific objectives.

Please pray that the upcoming CPF trip is successful. For more information on the Catholic Peace Fellowship you can go to www.catholicpeacefellowship.org

From March 12 - 21, a Catholic Peace Fellowship delegation will be in Rome to share with Church officials our experience working with conscientious objectors and to push for even stronger support for them and their opposition to war.

The delegation will consist of Tom Cornell (who, along with Jim Forest, co-founded CPF in 1964), Mike Griffin, CPF Education Director, and Joshua Casteel, Iraq War veteran and Catholic conscientious objector.

The three will meet with officials from the Vatican Secretariat of State, the Pontifical Council for Justice, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It now seems possible that we will have a brief encounter with Pope Benedict XVI. We will help lead a conference in Assisi, and will meet with Catholic movements like Sant’ Egidio.

Please pray for the success of our trip. Pray that those who went before us, like Dorothy Day, who made a pilgrimage to Rome during the Second Vatican Council, be with us as we seek to fulfill our objectives:

-to ask for even clearer public statements that conscientious objection is a central tool by which the Church can resist war and be a sign of peace.

-to ask for a future addendum to the Catechism section on war, making clear that just war doctrine is more than “a tool for statecraft” and can be applied by soldiers.

-to address problems that arise when the chaplains are supposed to act both as agents of the military and as ministers of the Church.

-to urge Church leaders to call for the legal protection of selective conscientious objectors. Absent such protection, we will urge that the Church advise pastors and youth leaders to counsel extreme caution toward an enlistment which gives one’s conscience to the state.

How can you help? Since our trip takes place during Lent, you can offer your prayer, fasting and almsgiving for this pilgrimage. Also, we are still raising money to cover the costs of this trip. If you are able, simply go to our secure site for donations, and send us an email letting us know that your donation is earmarked for the Rome pilgrimage. Or send us a check in the mail!

Lastly, we welcome any ideas you'd like to share with us before we go!