I actually agree that mere support of a pro-life policy does not necessarily trump (rimshot!) all other considerations during a presidential election. And I think it's important to emphasize presidential elections because of the insanely-outsized role played by the Presidential officeholder.
So, if you were to say that President Bush's genuine support for the pro-life movement wasn't worth wrecking the Middle East and countless thousands of human lives, I'd say you were on to something.
But some arguments on this calculus are better than others, and Franciscan theologian Fr. Daniel Maria Klimek outlines the problems with the arguments of a very prominent Jesuit reverend.
Read the whole thing, but it is worth the time for the discussion of "proportionate reasons" alone.
The expression “proportionate reasons,” therefore, is applicable when issues of the highest moral gravity, those that constitute intrinsic evils, are quantified against each other in trying to choose a candidate who represents the lesser of two evils. And not when quantifying less egregious (although still important) moral issues against those that constitute the direct killing of innocent human life.
The political climate in America is the worst in my lifetime. Finding clarity through the moral smog of the landscape is absolutely essential.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Be reasonably civil. Ire alloyed with reason is fine. But slagging the host gets you the banhammer.