Posted on 06/01/2010 7:33:43 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Not to pick on the Indiana Catholic Action Network (I-CAN) – because they aren’t the only ones generating moral confusion about social matters and the proper Catholic response – but an examination of its 2010 public policy positions is instructive. These auxiliary Church bodies unwittingly have done a lot of damage, such as helping to elect morally-perverted Catholic politicians with grave disdain for Church teaching.
A recent I-CAN email alert expressed irritation over Senate legislation to increase border enforcement rather than “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (code word alert: emphasis and capitalization are in the original, to indicate that the term “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” means something very specific), urging its contacts to set their senators straight.
I-CAN is a function of the Indiana Catholic Conference (ICC), which calls itself “the public policy voice of the Catholic Church in Indiana” and, like all other state Catholic Conferences, includes the full quiver of Indiana’s acting bishops. ICC’s website insists it’s “not trying to form a religious voting block...nor tell people how to vote,” despite making recommendations for specific actions, such as “Ask Your Senator to Oppose Enforcement Only Measures.” However, “it is analyzing political issues from a social and moral point of view…. [and] through the Indiana Catholic Action Network (ICAN), you and other Catholics can have a direct impact on legislative action.”
The logic of this is: I-CAN supports “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (and we know what THAT means) and therefore the Indiana Catholic bishops support “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” which is approved by them on the basis of Catholic moral principles and therefore carries the weight of the Church, manifested in Indiana by the ICC…although, as a citizen, the Indiana Catholic is free to vote otherwise.
Looking at other I-CAN/ ICC public policy issues and recommendations only makes the matter more confusing. For example, there’s its recommendation to support a piece of proposed state legislation – SJR 13 the Definition of Marriage Act – that would define marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
Presumably, the Catholic can apply the same logic: I-CAN supports the Definition of Marriage Act and therefore the Indiana Catholic bishops support the Definition of Marriage Act, which is approved by them on the basis of Catholic moral principles and therefore carries the weight of the Church, manifested in Indiana by the ICC …although, as a citizen, the Indiana Catholic is free to vote otherwise.
Looked at this way, it appears the citizen-Catholic is under the same moral pressure to consider the Church’s point of view, as represented by the thoughtful Indiana Catholic Conference , whether he is reflecting on the most humanitarian way to contend with illegal immigration issues or the legalized redefinition of essential moral principles. At first glance, they both concern a complex tension between the dignity of a person (either an illegal immigrant or a same-sex oriented person) and the rights and needs of a larger body of persons. Catholic social teaching insists both sets of concerns must be addressed. Neither the illegal immigrant nor the same-sex oriented person may be exploited or abused.
On the other hand, the illegal immigrant and the same-sex oriented person are not in the moral position of demanding immoral social accommodations. It is immoral to insist that the United States must grant an illegal immigrant amnesty or social benefits (although right and proper that generous individuals and institutions do so, particularly when the illegal in question is fleeing certain death); it is also immoral to insist a society must change its moral principles to give same-sex oriented persons the illusion of normalcy – and it is equally immoral for individuals and institutions to pretend they can change those moral principles.
The issues of illegal immigration and same-sex “marriage,” therefore, can’t be approached in the same way. The Indiana Catholic Conference quite properly offers a considered opinion about how to best handle the problem of illegal immigration in the United States and then, quite properly, allows that there may be citizens of good will who, using the same moral principles, may come up with equally legitimate but differing policies to address the problem.
On the other hand, while the Indiana Catholic Conference quite properly offers an immutable, universal moral principle about marriage, it cannot allow that there are citizens of good will who, using the same moral principles will have legitimate but differing policies to address the problem. In the same way that no state has the moral authority to redefine human personhood, either to confer it on non-humans or to strip it from others (for example, Jews or fetuses), no state has the moral authority to redefine marriage. Therefore, giving both prudential public policy statements and public policy statements about moral truths equal weight, and prefacing both with the caveat that it’s not telling anyone “how to vote,” the I-CAN/ICC is, hopefully unwittingly, creating moral relativists among its Catholic citizens. And the moral relativist Catholic citizen votes for pro-abortion politicians if they support “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” and universal health care.
That was simple, wasn’t it.
....The logic of this is: I-CAN supports “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (and we know what THAT means) and therefore the Indiana Catholic bishops support “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” which is approved by them on the basis of Catholic moral principles and therefore carries the weight of the Church, manifested in Indiana by the ICC…although, as a citizen, the Indiana Catholic is free to vote otherwise....
....Presumably, the Catholic can apply the same logic: I-CAN supports the Definition of Marriage Act and therefore the Indiana Catholic bishops support the Definition of Marriage Act, which is approved by them on the basis of Catholic moral principles and therefore carries the weight of the Church, manifested in Indiana by the ICC …although, as a citizen, the Indiana Catholic is free to vote otherwise....
....Therefore, giving both prudential public policy statements and public policy statements about moral truths equal weight, and prefacing both with the caveat that it’s not telling anyone “how to vote,” the I-CAN/ICC is, hopefully unwittingly, creating moral relativists among its Catholic citizens. And the moral relativist Catholic citizen votes for pro-abortion politicians if they support “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” and universal health care.
However, I don't like the tune they are playing. Sounds too much like The Internationale.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.