I met Deacon Fournier several years ago, and he is the embodiment of graciousness and enthusiasm. He has done great work for the Church in the public sphere, and his career shows his love of Christ and the Gospel.
Because there are so many good aspects of the article Sal mentions, I hesitate to disagree with any of it. However, there are some statements in the article with which I would quibble.
First, I do not share the contemporary distaste for retributive justice. Deacon Fournier says "Vengeance is never ours," and that is true: private individuals do not have the right to mete out justice privately. However, the state does have that right: Saint Paul made it very clear that the power of the sword, wielded by the state, is delegated by God, and therefore takes on a supernatural meaning. Earthly justice is neither perfect nor final, but it is not on the same level as a blood feud. The state can and must punish criminals, not simply to deter other evil men, but because it is right to deprive criminals of some personal good because they have acted to harm the public good.
Second, and more grievously, it's "Alex P. Keaton," not "Alex B Keaton." I was a big fan of Michael J. Fox's unapologetically conservative character on "Family Ties," and I cannot let the misspelling pass.
Third, there are entirely! too many! exclamation points!
Back to the serious stuff: there is no way that you could characterize the American economy as Darwinian. Governments at all levels comprise a third of the economy, and the vast majority of that spending goes to "human needs," not defense or law enforcement. Social spending comprises an ever-growing portion of the government, and has for the last century. That will not change, no matter who wins in November.
The article's last sentence is a cop-out: "However, God is not a Republican, nor is he a Democrat...and neither am I." If Deacon Fournier declines to align himself with a political party, then that is his right. He must follow his conscience just like the rest of us.
But his words seem to imply -- and I am not at all sure he means to say this -- that to choose a political party is therefore ungodly. I have the same problem with this as the whole "What Would Jesus Do?" fad. That's the wrong question. It should be, "What does Jesus want me to do?"
I do not think that Christians are called to stand aloof from history, or that it is contrary to the Gospel to take sides in great and significant national debates. Just as Jesus Christ entered history through the Incarnation, and continues to work in history through the Holy Spirit, we are called to work for God's justice on earth.
No political party holds a monopoly on Truth. Not even Holy Mother Church can claim that. We must discern the best way to live the truth, and then form allies and fight for the good. We, the laity, have that weighty responsibility. When Christ comes again, he will want to see some progress toward a more just world. Let's get cracking.
I have seen an essay in which he clearly does identify himself as a republican.....whatever....I like most of his stuff.
If one is going to put it as simply and unequivocally as "mercy should trump justice; vengeance is never ours," then I don't agree.
Let's be perfectly clear ... this is not an argument against the death penalty, but against punishment as such -- whether imprisonment, fines, corporal penalties, time out, public ostracism or humiliation, or anything else that ... well, human beings have ever used. All are inferior to mercy and never ours, if things are really that simple. That's clearly not compatible with too much of the Old and New Testament and with Tradition and even his own anti-death penalty argument as borrowed from the Catechism and EV (though I must wonder at the sneer quotes around the word "punish").
From reading Mr Fournier's essay it's evident he won't, at the end of the day, be voting for Sen. Kerry.
I get the same impression, Mark. Of his "four pillars," the Republican nominee clearly supports three, and I'm sure he would argue that he also supports the fourth (helping the poor.) The Democrat supports the fourth and not only rejects the other three, but emphatically supports the opposite of Fournier's position.
They called me "Alex" in econ grad school in the 80s. I will disagree with premise that many Americans go without "healthcare" in this country. This is patently untrue. Hospitals do not turn people away. Indeed, they incur great costs to serve ILLEGAL aliens within our borders. I can hardly imagine that American citizens with or without insurance are being deprived of emergency services. Further, there are plenty of local clinics supported by federal and state programs, plus private practices participate in the various welfare programs. Indeed, some are without insurance, but most of those persons are transiently without insurance coverage, ie, young single adults. I don't have the link handy, but some one at NRO did a take-down of the estimated numbers involved. As usual, the Dems have fabricated a problem to be solved by government.
Now, there are problems with the economics of the medical industry. Some have to do with the fact that customers don't pay and don't care about price. Services are generally guaranteed to be paid (up to some limits) by private and government insurance. I don't know all the economic particulars, here, but some improvements need to be made. Those improvements would NOT include socialized medicine.