Tuesday, May 31, 2016
Monday, May 23, 2016
Monday, May 16, 2016
Fun Election Game
Let's say there are 2 candidates for president
Candidate 1 is pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-partial birth abortion and pro-gay "marriage"
Candidate 2 - claims to be against all those things above
Assuming that you would never vote for candidate 1, what would Candidate 2 have to say or do in order for you NOT to vote for either candidate?
It is a fascinating question. Feel free to leave a list of things that you would consider to disqualifiers for candidate 2
Candidate 1 is pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, pro-partial birth abortion and pro-gay "marriage"
Candidate 2 - claims to be against all those things above
Assuming that you would never vote for candidate 1, what would Candidate 2 have to say or do in order for you NOT to vote for either candidate?
It is a fascinating question. Feel free to leave a list of things that you would consider to disqualifiers for candidate 2
Awesome talk at my parish on sacred music
This was given by Mr. Edward Atkinson, our director of sacred music
Sunday, May 15, 2016
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Monday, May 9, 2016
On the Catholic Option to Not Vote
Yes, the Catechism says:
But the Catechism is not meant to be exhaustive of options in every situation, and so the Bishops of the US, in expanding on the particular issue of voting, note in paragraph 36 of "Faithful Citizenship":
"When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate"
This actually is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching because one can easily imagine a scenario where both candidates are heinous options. Imagine a scenario (just for illustrative purposes) where Stalin and Hitler are the two names on the ballot
The Church would never COMPEL us to pick one in that instance, and if there is an instance where it is possible to not vote, then that proves that the Bishops are correct - it is POSSIBLE to not vote
The only question left to discern, then, is whether or not THIS PARTICULAR ELECTION is one in which a person feels they can vote for one of the candidates or not
The thing about discernment, though, is that you can't do it for someone else and no one can do it for you. I hear a lot of people saying "A Catholic has to vote for candidate ________ in order to stop candidate ___________, you can't sit this election out or it is a sin."
That is patently untrue. Not voting is NOT NECESSARILY a sin, and each person has to pray and decide, in each election, whether they can in good conscience vote for ANY of the candidates.
2) Another point here: even if you disagree with the Bishop's above, and believe that the Catechism is good but Faithful Citizenship is bad..."exercising one's right to vote" (as the Catechism says) is not the same as "You must vote for one of the two major political party candidates". I can follow the Catechism and vote for my Dad for President (which I may do)
But the Catechism is not meant to be exhaustive of options in every situation, and so the Bishops of the US, in expanding on the particular issue of voting, note in paragraph 36 of "Faithful Citizenship":
"When all candidates hold a position that promotes an intrinsically evil act, the conscientious voter faces a dilemma. The voter may decide to take the extraordinary step of not voting for any candidate"
This actually is perfectly in line with Catholic teaching because one can easily imagine a scenario where both candidates are heinous options. Imagine a scenario (just for illustrative purposes) where Stalin and Hitler are the two names on the ballot
The Church would never COMPEL us to pick one in that instance, and if there is an instance where it is possible to not vote, then that proves that the Bishops are correct - it is POSSIBLE to not vote
The only question left to discern, then, is whether or not THIS PARTICULAR ELECTION is one in which a person feels they can vote for one of the candidates or not
The thing about discernment, though, is that you can't do it for someone else and no one can do it for you. I hear a lot of people saying "A Catholic has to vote for candidate ________ in order to stop candidate ___________, you can't sit this election out or it is a sin."
That is patently untrue. Not voting is NOT NECESSARILY a sin, and each person has to pray and decide, in each election, whether they can in good conscience vote for ANY of the candidates.
2) Another point here: even if you disagree with the Bishop's above, and believe that the Catechism is good but Faithful Citizenship is bad..."exercising one's right to vote" (as the Catechism says) is not the same as "You must vote for one of the two major political party candidates". I can follow the Catechism and vote for my Dad for President (which I may do)
Trump - the national version of Indiana's Richard Mourdock
In the Tea Party surge in 2012, Richard Mourdock upset long time Indiana senator Richard Lugar in the Republican primary. Lugar had served admirably in a long and distinguished career, but Mourdock won over voters with promises to
"shake up Washington as an outsider"
"take on the Republican establishment"
etc. etc.
Mourdock won the primary and then got DESTROYED in the general election by Democratic moderate Joe Donnelly. (Donnelly won handily in a race that was supposed to be a slam dunk for the Republicans)
It was Mourdock's mouth that got him into trouble, as he failed miserably in debates, and, most disastrously, at one point implied that rape could be intended by God.
Guess what, Republicans in Indiana learned a hard lesson, but they won't nominate someone like Mourdock for a long, long time. They learned that electability ACTUALLY MATTERS, and that you can't put someone up for general election just because they promise to go burn the establishment down. Any crazy person can promise to go burn everything down.
And I think the same thing will happen with Donald Trump.
1) He's promised to burn down the establishment (Democrats and Republicans)
2) He says completely asinine statements that defy reality
3) He will be destroyed in a general election
4) Nationally, Republicans will learn the hard lesson that electability actually matters
After Trump is destroyed in the general election, a lot of Trump supporters will go back to not voting and will disappear from politics, and the rest of the Republicans drinking the Trump Koolaid at the moment will sober up, do their penance for getting behind a mad man, and will all make promises to never do anything like nominating Trump ever again.
"shake up Washington as an outsider"
"take on the Republican establishment"
etc. etc.
Mourdock won the primary and then got DESTROYED in the general election by Democratic moderate Joe Donnelly. (Donnelly won handily in a race that was supposed to be a slam dunk for the Republicans)
It was Mourdock's mouth that got him into trouble, as he failed miserably in debates, and, most disastrously, at one point implied that rape could be intended by God.
Guess what, Republicans in Indiana learned a hard lesson, but they won't nominate someone like Mourdock for a long, long time. They learned that electability ACTUALLY MATTERS, and that you can't put someone up for general election just because they promise to go burn the establishment down. Any crazy person can promise to go burn everything down.
And I think the same thing will happen with Donald Trump.
1) He's promised to burn down the establishment (Democrats and Republicans)
2) He says completely asinine statements that defy reality
3) He will be destroyed in a general election
4) Nationally, Republicans will learn the hard lesson that electability actually matters
After Trump is destroyed in the general election, a lot of Trump supporters will go back to not voting and will disappear from politics, and the rest of the Republicans drinking the Trump Koolaid at the moment will sober up, do their penance for getting behind a mad man, and will all make promises to never do anything like nominating Trump ever again.
Sunday, May 8, 2016
Bishops Against Trump????
In the months leading up to the election in November, I have a prediction in the Catholic world - we will hear bishops coming out, in very thinly veiled ways, against Donald Trump.
I certainly understand that - the man has said things about women, torturing the FAMILIES of terrorists, etc. that would certainly cause me to speak up if I were a bishop. A bishop SHOULD speak out against a man like Trump.
It undercuts whatever political credibility the Church's bishops have, however, when bishops who did NOT speak out in thinly veiled ways against politicians who actively support and encourage abortion on demand, redefining marriage, embryonic stem cell research, etc.
If you are a Catholic leader who condemns all those who stray horribly from what the Church encourages, I'll listen to your criticism of Trump. If you are a Church leader that only calls on the carpet people from one side of the political aisle, perhaps that leaders politics are more important than the Church's teachings????
I certainly understand that - the man has said things about women, torturing the FAMILIES of terrorists, etc. that would certainly cause me to speak up if I were a bishop. A bishop SHOULD speak out against a man like Trump.
It undercuts whatever political credibility the Church's bishops have, however, when bishops who did NOT speak out in thinly veiled ways against politicians who actively support and encourage abortion on demand, redefining marriage, embryonic stem cell research, etc.
If you are a Catholic leader who condemns all those who stray horribly from what the Church encourages, I'll listen to your criticism of Trump. If you are a Church leader that only calls on the carpet people from one side of the political aisle, perhaps that leaders politics are more important than the Church's teachings????
Wednesday, May 4, 2016
The Flaws of Moral "Puzzles"
When I was in college, I had professors try to deconstruct and demolish Christianity, and they did so primarily through "morality puzzles"
You are a Jewish mother of an infant child
You and 50 jews are hiding in a basement
The nazis come to the door
Your baby starts crying...what would you do...
And then their statement: "see, sometimes it is okay to kill children"
But these "morality puzzles" are, in a word, dumb
The option a Catholic should take in the above "puzzle" is "I'm not killing my child. If my crying child leads the Nazi's to find us, and then, when they find us, they also then decide to kill us, guess who that is on...THEM."
People who try to deconstruct the Church's moral teachings are always using these puzzles, but they are always ridiculous.s
A friend recently asked me one of these puzzles in response to my statement that I don't see how I will be voting for president in 2016
"A car is burning
You can only save 3 of the 4 people
1) call 911 (takes too long, all will die)
2) Grab people out yourself knowing that you can save at most 3 persons
or 3) do nothing and watch them all burn to death"
This puzzle, again, presents false options
No one, in the above scenario, would know any of the parameters as the person has laid it out
I would call 911 because no angel would be standing there saying "Don't call 911, it won't work"
I would then run and start trying to pull people out because again no angel would be there saying "you can only save at most 3 of the 4"
I would also note that the above choice would be one I think I would make, but it would be what the Church would consider "heroic virtue" in that you are not REQUIRED by the Church or God's laws to run toward a burning car and try and save people
So to answer the question, this is the way people try to deconstruct Catholic moral reasoning, but it is deeply flawed
You are a Jewish mother of an infant child
You and 50 jews are hiding in a basement
The nazis come to the door
Your baby starts crying...what would you do...
And then their statement: "see, sometimes it is okay to kill children"
But these "morality puzzles" are, in a word, dumb
The option a Catholic should take in the above "puzzle" is "I'm not killing my child. If my crying child leads the Nazi's to find us, and then, when they find us, they also then decide to kill us, guess who that is on...THEM."
People who try to deconstruct the Church's moral teachings are always using these puzzles, but they are always ridiculous.s
A friend recently asked me one of these puzzles in response to my statement that I don't see how I will be voting for president in 2016
"A car is burning
You can only save 3 of the 4 people
1) call 911 (takes too long, all will die)
2) Grab people out yourself knowing that you can save at most 3 persons
or 3) do nothing and watch them all burn to death"
This puzzle, again, presents false options
No one, in the above scenario, would know any of the parameters as the person has laid it out
I would call 911 because no angel would be standing there saying "Don't call 911, it won't work"
I would then run and start trying to pull people out because again no angel would be there saying "you can only save at most 3 of the 4"
I would also note that the above choice would be one I think I would make, but it would be what the Church would consider "heroic virtue" in that you are not REQUIRED by the Church or God's laws to run toward a burning car and try and save people
So to answer the question, this is the way people try to deconstruct Catholic moral reasoning, but it is deeply flawed