Inherent complexity defies reduction

In responding to Suzanne's very interesting post regarding one woman's struggle to factor abortion and various aspects of the church's social teaching proportionately in order to arrive at a prudent judgment, she cites a letter-to-the-editor written by Professor Patrick Lee. As regards the letter, I need to point out contra Prof. Lee, that Abraham Lincoln took a personally opposed, but . . . position on slavery as a congressman, a candidate for the Senate, and running for his first term for President. He was morally opposed to slavery and to the extension of this institution into new states entering the union, but just fine with keeping it where it already existed, primarily for the sake of holding the union together.

Speaking on the subject of repealing the Missouri Compromise, he said: "And, as this subject is no other, than part and parcel of the larger general question of domestic-slavery, I wish to MAKE and to KEEP the distinction between the EXISTING institution, and the EXTENSION of it, so broad, and so clear, that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one, successfully misrepresent me." He was worried about being misrepresented because people on both sides of the issue could accuse him of taking the opposite position, which he did not. His was a middle way. Of course, it ultimately failed and justice won out, due in no small part to his Emancipation Proclamation. Before joining the new Republican Party, Lincoln was a Whig and supported that party's position on slavery. As it pertains to abortion, let's not forget church teaching, let's not forget the papal magisterium of JPII. I refer specifically number 73 of Evangelium Vitae:

"A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects."

While I agree with Prof. Lee about the equal dignity of all human life, one has to admit that it is not apparent to many people, perhaps not even most, that having an abortion is akin to shooting a professor, especially early term abortions; the earlier the abortion, the less apparent the equivalency. Again, morally and logically all human life from conception to natural death inherently possesses equal dignity. A larger issue arises from reducing the issue to a simple, banal, analogy. I refer to his direct analogy between abortion and shooting professors. Such an analogy lends itself to the kind of distorted reasoning that makes it okay for people to shoot abortionists, which it clearly is not, either morally or legally. Such a response goes far beyond the conscientious objection called for by the church to unjust abortion laws. John Brown and his kind of violent abolitionist are the analogue to such a distortion in the slavery example, a form of abolition that Lincoln rejected, a form of abolition that helped facilitate the Civil War. With all that in mind, let's take up the analogy a bit more: if a gunman were taking shots at the good professor and I were an armed bystander in a state, like Utah, that legally allows me to walk around packing heat, or a policeman, I would be justified in shooting the gunman, but only with the intention of deterring him him, not killing him. So, I guess I would say that there is a missing premise or two from his argument. In the end, I accept his conclusion, but find his argument lacking and his analogy disturbing as well as very problematic.

Missing premise or not, Prof. Lee's response is too narrow, too abstract, and too prone to misinterpretation to be truly educational- I know a thing or two about being too abstract- and is not likely to persuade anyone who does not already agree with him, namely Kari Lundgren. Who knows, perhaps Ms. Lundgren heard this argument from Prof. Lee himself at FUS? At least she has the benefit of writing about grappling with her own experience and growing beyond a certain narrowness, which narrowness does, indeed, show a lack of true education. Let's hope she discovers the beauty of the both/and, rejecting the false dilemmas that too many people of faith insist upon. The question about life is simple, but the social and political situation in which we must offer the answer is complicated and complex, requiring persons who are truly educated with a deep understanding of the truth, who possess the ability to unequivocally and convincingly communicate it. I think Kari is faithfully dealing with this complexity. I think the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, leads us by his example.

USCCB on worksite raids

Statement of Most Reverend John C. Wester
Bishop of Salt Lake City
Chairman, U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration
On
Worksite Enforcement Raids
September 10, 2008

On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), I call upon the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and President Bush to reexamine the use of worksite enforcement raids as an immigration enforcement tool. The humanitarian costs of these raids are immeasurable and unacceptable in a civilized society.

In the absence of comprehensive immigration reform, we have sought to work collaboratively with DHS to ensure that raids are carried out humanely. It seems to us that DHS has attempted to abide by several humanitarian considerations in executing some of the workplace raids.

However, we believe that DHS has not gone far enough to ensure that human rights protections are consistently applied in all enforcement actions.

For over a year now, DHS has targeted employers who hire unauthorized workers by using force to enter worksites and arrest immigrant workers. During the process of these raids, U.S.-citizen children have been separated from their parents for days, if not longer; immigrants arrested have not been afforded the rights of due process; and local communities, including legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens, have been disrupted and dislocated. The sweeping nature of these raids---which often involve hundreds of law enforcement personnel with weapons---strike fear in immigrant communities and make it difficult for those arrested to secure basic due process protections, including legal counsel.

We have witnessed first-hand the suffering of immigrant families and are gravely concerned about the collateral human consequences of immigration enforcement raids on the family unit. Many of our local parishes have helped respond to human needs generated by these enforcement actions, providing counseling and legal services to parents and children and basic needs assistance to immigrant communities.

Raids strike immigrant communities unexpectedly, leaving the affected immigrant families to cope in their aftermath. Husbands are separated from their wives, and children are separated from their parents. Many families never recover; others never reunite.

As our government confronts the challenges of immigration, let it not forget one of its core duties: protecting the family unit as the fundamental institution upon which society and government itself depends.

While we do not question the right and duty of our government to enforce the law, we do question whether worksite enforcement raids are the most effective and humane method for performing this duty, particularly as they are presently being implemented. In this regard, we ask DHS to immediately pledge to take the following actions to mitigate the human costs of these raids:

-DHS should refrain from enforcement activity in certain areas that provide humanitarian relief—churches, hospitals, community health centers, schools, food banks, and other community-based organizations that provide charitable services;


-Primary, not simply sole, caregivers should be released following an enforcement action to care for their children. A variety of release mechanisms, including parole in the public interest, release on recognizance, bail, and alternatives to detention should be utilized for this purpose: DHS should facilitate access to meaningful legal representation for arrested individuals so that they are aware of their legal rights and options;


-Enforcement actions should be conducted in a manner which preserves basic human dignity: immigrants who are working to survive and support their families should not be treated like criminals.

-Mechanisms should be instituted to allow family members to remain together and to locate each other during and following an enforcement action. Non-profit and community groups should be engaged in this effort.

Absent the effective and immediate implementation of these safeguards, we believe that these enforcement raids should be abandoned.

Immigration enforcement raids demonstrate politically the ability of the government to enforce the law. They do little, however, to solve the broader challenge of illegal immigration. They also reveal, sadly, the failure of a seriously flawed immigration system, which, as we have consistently stated, requires comprehensive reform.

As they begin their general election campaigns, we urge the two presidential candidates to engage the issue of immigration in a humane, thoughtful, and courageous manner.

We urge our elected and appointed officials to turn away from enforcement-only methods and direct their energy toward the adoption of comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

Not proportionate reasoning, but actual proportionate reasons

UPDATE: Hmmm. Five former secretaries of State think we should talk to Iran, including Henry Kissenger, whose opinion I value very little.

The current issue of The Atlantic Monthly, in addition to featuring Ross Douthat's insightful piece on pornography, to which others have drawn attention, also has an insightful article, which articulates what is perhaps the main proportionate reason that pro-life Catholics are either supporting or considering supporting Sen. Obama. The article, by Jeffrey Goldberg, is entitled "The Wars of John McCain".

Another article worth considering is by Fr. John Kavanaugh, SJ, who, after writing a well-reasoned and impassioned open letter to Sen. Obama on the issue of abortion, writes to Sen. McCain about the same issue tackled by Goldberg, in which he tells the senator: "Your problem is a war problem".

You may also find Doug Kmiec's response to Fr. Kavanaugh's open letter to Sen. Obama interesting.

Two questions

First, apart from pulling a Romney with regard to his stance on immigration (i.e., dramatically changing his position from when he was governor to win in Iowa), how can Huckabee be considered a populist by proposing the replacement of a progressive income tax for a regressive national sales tax? I agree that our income tax system, like our immigration (non)system, our healthcare chaos, and our anti-democratic laws about campaign finance, is in dire need of overhaul in the direction of being flatter and fairer, but I fail to see how such a candidate can appeal to working people in this way.

Second, are not people who oppose the horrific injustice of abortion liberals? After all, we are the ones opposing the unjust status quo. Hence, we are the ones seeking to establish a more humane and progressive societal order. This implies that people who defend the unjust status quo are the conservatives. Probably not an original thought, but it is one that hit me with force today.

Making a prudential judgment based on reason: Immigration

I am very happy that we have opened a dialogue on immigration. Without a doubt it is one of the particular issues that we need to grapple with and resolve as a nation. Having a presidential election is a good way of bringing this issue to the fore. I am even happier, as I mentioned in my initial post, that all three candidates who have a shot at being our next president have reasonable, just, compassionate, and comprehensive proposals on this issue. It helps to point out that it is now mathematically impossible for Gov. Huckabee to receive enough delegates in the remaining primaries and caucuses to win the nomination. He can stop Sen. McCain from doing so and force an open convention- every political junkie's dream. I guarantee that Gov. Huckabee would not emerge from an open Republican convention as the nominee. So, in the wake of Jack's post and Fred's comments, I want to emphasize that the proposals on the table are based on reason, not sentiment. I also believe that among the many issues facing our country, immigration is one that can be resolved. I feel the same way about healthcare. Determining the biggest obstacle to resolving both issues is easy, just look at who benefits from the status quo. Hint: it is neither you nor me, nor immigrant people now living in the shadows.

I begin by pointing out that, like faith and reason, justice and compassion are complementary, not contradictory. A truly just proposal is also a compassionate proposal and, as with the inverse property of multiplication, vice-versa. Now, allow me to apply this to my take on immigration.

A nation not only has the right, but the duty to secure its borders because it is the fundamental duty of the state to protect its citizens. Nobody on either side of the debate disagrees about the need to accomplish this end. What we differ about is the most effective and just means of so doing. Deciding on the best means comes down to a prudential judgment. I disagree, both on practical and moral grounds, that building a wall is the best way to accomplish this.

I once again point out the impossibility of the logistics, not to mention the injustice, of deporting more than ten million people. However, I oppose just giving people who entered the country illegally a completely free pass. Indeed, there may be some who, for various reasons, it is desirable and even necessary to deport. People who have been here a long time, work, obey the laws, pay taxes, etc. should be allowed to stay and they should be given a path to accomplish this relatively easily and in short order. An important component to this process would be honestly acknowledging their status, paying a reasonable fine, and doing all this by a realistically established deadline. However, their safety should be guaranteed until such a time as the government can establish the process and get it up and running. In other words, no more futile, arbitrary raids on meat packing plants for political purposes! Such actions accomplish nothing, except throwing people's lives into turmoil. Given the current situation and our obligation to act morally, such arbitrary and selective enforcement is unjust. In any established process, the reunification of families should be high on the agenda. This means that separated families should be given priority.

Again, establishing a guest worker program would allow us to know who is coming into and leaving the country and why. Such a program also goes a long distance toward discouraging people from undertaking perilous border crossings and seeking the services of exploitative "coyotes". So, we kill two birds with one stone. It does not end there, we get a third bird. If people are here legally, the ability of employers to treat employees unfairly and unjustly is greatly diminished. How? Because a legal worker does not have to hesitate to bring a grievance through legal channels, be it a refusal to pay wages, provide promised or required benefits, or unsafe working conditions.

Finally, working with Mexico and Central American governments in accomplishing the necessary political and economic reforms to provide their people with more opportunities in their native countries will help address all of these issues. Granted that is a bit vague. So, more concretely, we need to revisit treaties, most particularly NAFTA, which has only benefited the rich, not workers in the U.S., Mexico, or Canada. We also need to look at the prudence and justice of our current agricultural policies, particularly as it pertains to subsidies.

This is not some sentimental screed about how we love our neighbors by aiding and abetting their breaking of the law. It is a judgment about how to bring our faith to bear on a real issue confronting our nation, on our collective circumstances. It is not ideological. These proposals also have the distinct advantage of being in accord with what our national conference of bishops has proposed. Is it a 100% solution? No, but what is? It is a workable solution that, over time, will justly, which is to say compassionately, render a big problem much smaller, a giant step in the right direction. What strikes me as an emotional, not to mention nativist, which is to say anti-Catholic, even if only by implication, position is build a wall, deport ten million people, keep current free trade agreements unamended, and deny opportunity to people looking for a better life and willing to work hard to earn it. I, for one, do not want to live in fortress America.

Is Man Made with a Moral Conscience?

A team of dogged psychology researchers at Yale have finally proven what some of us have been trying to tell them for centuries: "... the ability to make moral judgments has innate foundations and is not just learned from parents."

Of course, the psychologists wouldn't put it this way at all... instead, this is the summary judgment of James Randerson reporting for The Guardian.

Instead the psychologists would rather put it this way: "... infants assess individuals on the basis of their behaviour towards others. This capacity may serve as the foundation for moral thought and action, and its early developmental emergence supports the view that social evaluation is a biological adaptation." So, you see, it's just Darwin all over again.

Here's The Guardian's peek at the story. If you've got the dough, you can read the actual research published in the journal Nature here.

For more on this developing story continue your reading at paragraph 1776 of The Catechism of the Catholic Church and check out Luigi Giussani's The Religious Sense.