The head of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops Archbishop Jose Gomez has issued some statements concerning Joe Biden and his possible presidency. First of all we all need to remember that Joe Biden isn't officially confirmed as president yet. And plus there are many lawsuits that are currently being undertaken which could see reversals and so on. So we shouldn't jump to any conclusions which it seems the US Conference of Catholic Bishops is currently doing.
Anyway, I just read this article where the conference is welcoming Joe Biden as the successor of Donald Trump. However they are expressing concern over his stance on abortion. This is obviously a fantastic development that they are actually speaking out. However there are still issues with this in terms of how it's being done.
Once again first and foremost it's fantastic that the USCCB is actually issuing a statement condemning abortion and condemning Joe Biden's approach to it. As we all know Joe Biden is very pro-choice and has no issue with abortion up to the moment of birth. In fact his party, the Democratic party, wants to increase access to abortion and eliminate anything that stands in its way.
From a Catholic perspective and from a basic perspective of morality, abortion is an absolute evil. There are no circumstances under which a direct abortion can be morally licit. It is murder. This is where the problem comes in with the statement by the Bishops. The problem is that in the same pronouncement in which they express concern over Joe Biden's stance on abortion they also congratulate him on many far less important issues and which I would argue don't have anything really to do is Catholicism at all. For example they say that he is doing a good job when it comes to climate change, racial justice, and immigration issues.
First of all let's talk about climate change and immigration issues. Those issues are ones which do not have solid Catholic doctrine behind them. For example how we should deal with climate change is definitely up for debate. In Catholic theology, human beings are the most important things on the Earth. We do not worship the Earth because the Earth is meant to serve humanity. This goes for animals of the Earth and all of the resources of the earth. Their ultimate end is to help humanity. And so the only correct understanding of our place in the world is that humanity must be placed first. Therefore, if our goal in reducing climate change is for the betterment of humanity overall then it can be acceptable. But often times climate change rhetoric looks at human beings as being some kind of parasite or disease of the earth which must be eradicated. Many climate change advocates demand less humanity and fewer people on the Earth and this is completely contrary to Catholic morality.
Also, as I've alluded to, the measures taken to lessen climate change must always be weighed against the negative effects these measures will have on humanity from a Catholic perspective. For example, if implementing climate change protocols will lead to great levels of hardship and possibly even starvation of many people it can in no way be considered. However, this is rarely the case when it comes to global warming.
As an example of this way of thinking I remember watching a show about very poor people in Africa and this United Nations institution was helping them build solar panels and other green energy technology in their Village. These people could not even access clean drinking water and they did not have access to electricity. But the primary focus of the UN was that these people use renewable energy even though renewable energy would be far more expensive than conventional forms of energy.
Countries and people must be allowed to evolve in terms of their technology. Perhaps once a society reaches a very advanced level they can start implementing green energy policies. But if they do so prematurely this actually ends up harming people far more. I remember reading an article about how every developed Nation at one point was very polluted and used very dirty forms of energy but after they had achieved a certain level of economic status they were able to implement cleaner forms of energy. But the point is if people are starving to death that is not the time to force them to have very expensive forms of energy at the expense of their development.
Similarly, when it comes to immigration, this is a matter of prudential judgment that each person with influence must make for themselves. Of course we must be compassionate and welcoming of refugees and people suffering under difficult situations but when it comes to the policy of a country concerning immigration this is not a moral issue but rather a prudential issue. One could reasonably argue one way or the other when it comes to this topic. No country is morally obliged to take in an unlimited number of people. As happens often, these discussions can become very polarized. One side says we need to have unlimited amounts of immigration while the other side insists there should be absolutely no immigration. My point is that the level of immigration that a particular country embraces can be the matter of discussion and debate and not something which should be seen as an absolute moral issue. Who is to say that taking in 100,000 immigrants is morally inferior to taking in 1 million. This is something that people must decide on their own and with the leaders of their country. Immigration policy does not involve Catholic doctrine or any kind of absolutes in that way.
This is far different from abortion which is an absolute evil. It is wrong to place these two issues on the same footing as it seems the USCCB is doing. This is causing great confusion to uncatechized Catholics. They falsely take on the idea that immigration policy is of the same importance as abortion policy. And so they weigh out their two options in that way. For example, they may say well one candidate is pro-life but he's also opposed to high levels of immigration, while the other candidate is pro-choice but embraces high levels of immigration. Based on the statements of the USCCB, someone who is not well-informed could reasonably think that both candidates in this case were equal, morally speaking. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Racial Injustice is definitely something of importance. However it is my belief that this issue has been blown completely out of proportion. The Catholic Church is probably the most diverse institution on the face of the planet. We have laity, priests, and bishops from all over the world, of all different nationalities, speaking dozens of languages. There is hardly a place on Earth that doesn't have the Catholic Church. And the two places where the church is growing fastest are Africa and South America. Clearly these people do not feel the Catholic Church is a racist Institution. So I think it's a poor prudential judgment for the bishops to be aligning themselves with groups such as black lives matter which stands firmly against most of the beliefs of the Catholic Church. I know the church has not officially aligned itself with BLM but at the same time they are making statements talking about our Collective guilt when it comes to these issues. I'm not saying there's nothing that should be done but to make it sound like racism is an ever-present threat to every non-white person is rather absurd. Of course racism is wrong but the demand for racism in order to advance certain ideas is far greater than the supply.
Overall, I believe that bishops conferences have become far too political. There are potentially thousands of sins one could commit. Yes, racism is one of them. Yes, maliciously destroying the Earth is a sin. But these are but two out of thousands of sins. We need to get back to the traditional teachings of the church. We need to talk about the seven deadly sins, about sins of pride, sins of gluttony and lust and so on and so forth. We rarely hear about these things. Instead of aligning itself with the state, the Church needs to separate itself from the state. Although we do not believe in the separation of church and state, the Church needs to act completely independently and have no ties to the state that would curtail its activity. The Church is appointed by Jesus Christ to pass judgement on the state and to tell those within it whether they're acting in a moral or immoral way.
No comments:
Post a Comment