Happy Agreement?

October 30, 2008 § 13 Comments

So we don’t all agree that there is no proportionate reason to vote for presidential candidates who actively support policies of murdering the innocent. Shocking, that a bunch of people on the Internet don’t agree.

But we may be moving closer to something about which we can agree.

That is, perhaps we can agree that “in order to help stop B from winning because X” or “in order to help make A win because Y” do not constitute valid proportionate reasons to vote for A.

Counterintuitive, perhaps; but since when has reality always easily conformed to our intuitions?

Tagged:

§ 13 Responses to Happy Agreement?

  • brandon field says:

    <>since when has reality always easily conformed to our intuitions?<>The prophet Chesterton (as Mark likes to call him) said: “Truth, of course, must of necessity be stranger than fiction, for we have made fiction to suit ourselves.”

  • Anonymous says:

    Zippy,I don’t get it — your dialogue (the best I have seen thus far) at Disputations with Tom had sufficiently settled the matter wherein both of you intelligently approached and resolved the moral case for/against accordingly.Why do you pursue the SDG fellow at JA.O, whose arguments seem not as convincing (and, what’s more, incredibly more verbose — I mean, come on, a series of 7 long posts???) and appears even substantially inferior than Tom’s simple one at Disputations?

  • JACK says:

    I swear anonymous isn’t me, but I have to admit I was wondering the same thing.(Of course, I just posted another comment over at JA.O, so I should be asking myself this question.)And this isn’t to denigrate SDG’s attempts or his argument. I just think Tom’s is far more persuasive.

  • zippy says:

    I suspect that there is resistance to Tom’s argument because his disagreement hinges on this:<>“I think Zippy overestimates the [outcome independent] harm in and underestimates the [outcome independent] benefit of voting for a candidate who supports murdering the innocent.”<>The problem with this is that it leaves ultimate settlement of the truth of the matter in the hands of reality, rather than in the hands of our arguments. IOW it is a question of fact, answerable by reality and not argument, whether I overestimate/underestimate in the manner he thinks that I do. And that is a vulnerability that I think most people are not willing to accept.

  • Anonymous says:

    By Guillermo Bustamante on October 30, 2008 8:45 PMAmong the over 110 bishops who have spoken out in this election in defense of Church teaching are 69 ordinaries (bishops who head dioceses).That’s over one-third of the 197 dioceses and archdioceses in the United States.WOW… oh… WOW… is all I can say! One third of the Bishops here in the United States have spoken out! Maybe when we hit the 50 million abortions mark… maybe when most of the Catholic hospitals have shut down… maybe when every state has to euthanize it’s sick and elderly and every state has to recognize same sex marriage…Maybe then, we can climb from one third up to “forty” percent. These may be the most courageous and brave group of “teachers” ever assembled in the history of the world. If it weren’t so very sickening and disgraceful we could have a good laugh about it. What a joke! What a tragedy! Don’t you just know how sick Our Lord is over all of this?When will they have the spine of “talk the talk and WALK THE WALK” to… bomb the murderers nest (USA Congress), via PUBLIC excommunication (Rome’s Law) of lawmakers direct-formal cooperators of abortion?

  • Hegel says:

    Okay, now you guys are freaking me out since the above is the <>nth<> post I’ve encountered here on Zippy’s blog — one question (actually, two): Who the heck is Guillermo Bustamante and why do you keep posting stuff written by him?It’s like me going around another person’s blog and posting stuff written by Nosterdamus! What gives? (okay, that makes it 3 questions then).

  • Bill Haley says:

    Damn Zippy (sorry, I had to),You have made the best arguments on this subject I have seen. I wish I had seen your blog months ago. I have been agonizing (in the classical sense) with the subject of the supposed moral obligation to vote for McCain.I have rarely been able to find a rational discussion on the issue without being accused of giving my vote to Obama and being complicit in four “obamanable” years of grave evil.It seems the popular parlance of “lesser of two evils” is not accurate and has done too much to cloud people’s intelligence and attempt to force an obligation where one does not exist.I do not have time to read your entire post and have already voted, but thank you for fighting to remain reasonable in such a heated discussion.Pax Christi,Bill Haley

  • e. says:

    Has Zippy become so significant a figure that the folks at JA.O continue to argue with him even if <>in absentia<>?

  • Anonymous says:

    Hegel:I’m not Nostradamus, just a Roman Catholic from overseas, scandalized by some “American Catholics”, and spreading my posts from The Curt Jester, to other blogs.CordiallyThis is my today’s input:Now that the polls predict a landslide for the Infanticide Candidate, is urgent for the USCCB to focus their DUTY to enlighten those Catholics tempted to think sacrilege is banal, or, lose their charity to the clergy, by the lack of obedience of them to the Rock-Successor of Peter.And is not only Canon 915 to be obeyed despite displeasing the politicians in power. You can be courteous AND righteous, as Mother Teresa of Calcutta with Clinton-Gore.USCCB must correct too, the spineless attitude of avoiding PUBLIC excommunication, to those already automatically excommunicated by our Catholic Law:Formal-material cooperators of countless abortion chambers (are going on, full steam). Please keep in mind these words from the prefect of the Apostolic Signature, Archbishop Raymond Burke:“Catholics, especially politicians who publicly defend abortion, should not receive Communion…. (being a) scandal, consisting of leading people to think that the public act that this person is doing, which until now everyone believed was a serious sin, is really not that serious – if the Church allows him or her to receive Communion.”RegardsGuillermo Bustamante

  • Anon says:

    <> USCCB must correct too, the spineless attitude of avoiding PUBLIC excommunication, to those already automatically excommunicated by our Catholic Law:Formal-material cooperators of countless abortion chambers (are going on, full steam). <> I also used to think that being a politician and voting for a law that provides for abortion was an act which fell under the censure of “procuring” an abortion and the man is therefore latae sententiae excommunicated. I even made that very case in a letter to a bishop. However, according to fairly official (Vatican) rendering of this specific canon, the sentence does <> not <> fall on someone who does such an act as support abortion in the legislature. Apparently (I am reading between the lines here) the action of the guilty party has to be concrete aid of a <> specific <> procured abortion, or some such distinction. However, IMHO it should still be considered formal cooperation with grave public evil. Nothing would preclude doing an official excommunication on the politician, and it remains true both that he should not present himself for communion, AND that the pastor should not give him communion. It is merely that the automatic penalty of the canon is not applicable to that indirect an act.

  • Anonymous says:

    “Automatic penalty… is not applicable to that indirect an act”?By definition, if Canon 915 does not allow you Communion, is ex-communion (although still “Catholic”, unless public apostasy).For Vatican Abp. Burke (and me) is not an indirect but DIRECT act.St. Paul insisted in the SPIRIT, not the letter (bureaucratic scapegoat) of the Law.CordiallyGuillermo Bustamante

  • Anon says:

    No, of course not: you cannot go to communion after committing ANY mortal sin, but not any mortal sin gives you excommunication as a penalty. It is not by reason specifically of Canon 915 that Biden and Pelosi are required to refrain from receiving communion. The law is a positive law, and has scope only so far as the law giver intended it to. Apparently, from a Vatican interpretation, its scope does not extend to a vote in the legislature. I did not decide this – until I read the decision from the Vatican I thought 915 would excommunicate people like Biden also, but I was in error.

  • Anonymous says:

    The impending rule of FOCA, with a much heralded “Catholic” VP, invites us to refocus:1) How history (not me or you), will judge the USCCB being complicit of an OPEN genocidal regime? For sure will be much harsher than with Pious XII, in his radio Milan’s address against the HIDDEN Holocaust, when many bishops, clergy & lay Catholics (including Bishop von Galen's “Three Sermons in Defiance of the Nazis”) did with breathtaking courage in face of the likelihood of arrest and possible execution by a certified mad dictator?2) How will be judged the MEGA-SCANDAL of lawmakers allowed to name themselves Catholic, and sacrilegiously receiving the Eucharist in the Papal Mass at DC, WITH the USCCB refusing to take responsibility in this horrendous –and massive- desecration of the Holy Body of Christ?3) Won’t we lay Catholics, be held responsible for not sending a cry (collecting signatures) to Benedict XVI, for relocating MANY scandalous bishops to meditate in Vatican jobs? Content saying what a shame… to that scandal?4) A scandal compounded for not DEMANDING the excommunication of those culprits. WHY DEMAND? Because such is the SPIRIT of the Law in light of this grotesque fact: a surgical attendant in an abortion is automatically excommunicated and… the brain-leader-law designer- of the cold blooded murder is not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Happy Agreement? at Zippy Catholic.

meta