RSS Feed MenuYesterday, Virginia voters elected two Catholics as Governor and Attorney General. Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli did not hide that faith, even as it came under assault from Virginia Democrats and a compliant press, hopeful that voters in Northern Virginia would be turned off by their social conservatism. Even as The Washington Post stirred the pot over Bob McDonnell’s graduate school thesis, McDonnell ran television ads noting his family’s ties to the University of Notre Dame. And Cuccinelli never shied from his faith, even with the Post calling him a bigot for affirming the Catholic Church’s longstanding teachings about human sexuality.
At times with additional emphasis due to these candidates’ Catholicism, the Catholic Dioceses of Arlington and Richmond in recent weeks have been active instructing the flock of their obligations as Catholic citizens. These words have been charitable, instructive, and appropriate. Yet as the Church reflects on its increasingly active role in educating the faithful on their civic duties, it must take care to consider her tone, lest she come to be perceived as a mere appendage of the Republican party.
Thankfully, ordinary citizens rarely display the shocking ignorance of Church teaching voiced by some Catholic politicians. Still, Catholic citizens too often fail to “appreciate the difference in moral gravity between policies that are morally intrinsically unjust (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, and the deliberate destruction of human embryos) and policies involving prudential judgments about which people of good will may disagree concerning various means of promoting economic justice, public safety, and fair opportunities for every person.” In other words, they do not grasp that the right to life is essential, and that the right to a public option or a 35 percent top marginal rate is not.
That said, the Church does not tell citizens who to vote for. She might remind the faithful that in most instances they cannot vote for a politician supportive of abortion rights. But the Church does not then tell the faithful that they must, therefore, support the pro-life candidate.
Unfortunately, this important distinction is often lost in the presentation as Catholics and non-Catholics alike mistakenly assume that the Church’s prelates and parish priests are using their homilies as pep rallies for Republican candidates.
As the Church exercises her teaching authority and reminds congregations of their civic obligations, preachers must remind parishioners that while a liberal Catholic might be precluded from voting for a pro-choice Democrat, he might also reject the Republican candidate for failure to provide adequate provision for the poor or immigrant communities.
This subtle shift in presentation would more properly capture Church teaching and reconfirm for the faithful that the Church might be in the world, but is not of it. The Catholic Church might instruct her members of their civic obligations. But the Church can never view voting as MTV does, an activity to participate in for the mere sake of participation. Rather, voting is an activity meant to effect a larger objective good beyond that of civic participation. And if neither candidate promises to pursue that good, then Christian Catholics can testify to the inadequacy of these candidates by not voting.
And while secondary to the Church’s interest in being true to herself, this shift in tone would also make the Church a more effective institution, reestablishing with the faithful the Church’s truly catholic character as an institution with universal aspirations, a witness to something greater and more comprehensive than the interests of America’s necessarily parochial and ideological party system.
Reason60 // Nov 4, 2009 at 3:01 pm
As a lifelong Catholic, I agree that the Church should speak out forcefully on moral issues. However, speaking out on issues is not the same as supporting or opposing candidates, or bills.
There may be a moral reason why a Catholic would vote for a pro-choice candidate. While abortion may be the evil that the Church says it is, is a ban on abortion really in the best interests of human dignity and freedom?
I would make the argument for pro-choice vote along the same lines as the Church’s “just war” teaching- one of the tenets of a “just war” is that it have a reasonable chance of winning- tilting at windmills is inherently immoral, when you are talking about such grave matters as war.
Likewise, laws are only moral when they can be enforced, and when they enjoy a reasonable consensus among the democracy. The nation is currently split down the middle on abortion; there is no way any ban could be enforced without destroying the democratic fabric of the society.
Electing candidates who strive to ban abortion is NOT the most moral or effective method of reducing or eliminating abortion; working to educate and persuade society of the pro-life message is the better course. but of course this lacks the “silver bullet” appeal of a Supreme court decision, so the pro-life forces fixate on Presidential elections to the exclusion of all else.
Likewise, when the vote becomes a single issue decision, it ends up having a perverse effect- by sacrificng the Church’s teaching on social justice, peace, and human dignity on the altar of abortion realpolitik, we end up with a worse result.
30 years of Republican Presidents have not reduced abortion by one iota; not a single unborn child has been spared. yet we have had nearly endless war, a stripping away of the social safety net, a collusion between the rich and powerful to the detriment of the poor and powerless.
What is truly horrifying is the Church’s willingness to engage in cold cynical political calculation to this one end- namely, the recent decision by the US Catholic bishops to oppose health care reform, on the specious grounds that it may possibly allow funding of abortion. The Church made the cynical calculation that it is better to deprive millions of health care than to allow a single abortion. It is often written that religion and politics should not be mixed, because politics will become corrupted by religion; yet it is exactly the opposite- when the two mingle, it is religion that becomes corrupted and cynical.
In what way has the pro-life vote advanced the cause of human dignity and justice?
MI-GOPer // Nov 4, 2009 at 4:13 pm
I’m not sure what alternate reality Mr Clay lives in, but Catholic church leaders do, indeed, tell the faithful who to vote for and there are many priests who stand at the pulpit and decry gay marriage equality, target seated politicians with a pro-choice position, advance candidates with a strong social justice agenda, rail against opponents of affirmative action, etc. In Michigan, we even had priests in the pulpits and bishops in the curia tell voters that stem cell research was immoral, extending the statute of limitations on pedophila was wrong and a whole host (no pun) of issues that had nothing to do with instructions in the faith and eveything to do with politics or self interest. For instance, Catholic Church leaders up in Lansing foaming at the mouth because the local govt wanted to enact a Rain Tax or fee on any building based on its roof size to offset the costs of a new, very expensive, federally mandated combined sewer overflow system. How dare they tax us! That’s our money on the collection plate!
Mr Clay claims: “That said, the Church does not tell citizens who to vote for.” Wrong. In 2006 and 2008, Catholic parishes across Michigan were flooded with Voter Guides to the candidates printed by a far Right fundamentalist non-Catholic group and those guides specifically indicated who “religious” people of faith should vote for… the guides were distributed by the Michigan Catholic Conference, a public affairs organ of the official Church with a board made up of all the bishops. Some priests elected to ditch the guides and toss them into the trash, others literally held them up during the homily.
Maybe Mr Clay needs to get out of the alternate reality he’s living in? In our parish, in 2008, the parish priests made it very clear to the parishioners on 3 occasions that Obama was the candidate that peace-loving, social justice advancing people should vote for… to do otherwise was “to negate the message of Christ”. I’m sure there’s little chance that the Catholic Church will ever be identified as an organ of the GOP –except by the radical anti-religious zealouts who populate the Democrat Left… but then, they don’t believe in God in the first place and their motives are suspect.
Frankly, my choice would be for the Catholic Church to dismantle all the state Catholic conferences, dismantle the US Conference, stick to matters of faith and let the people in the pew make heads or tails out of political issues and candidates on their own time.
Of course, I’d also like Obama and Democrats to start telling the truth, so I guess I’m an idealist.
Socrates // Nov 4, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Religion and politics, a nice but explosive combination. I used to live in a nameless place where the bishop did not even try to hide his ideology: those who vote for such and such candidate will risk the salvation. I was tempted to tell him that it may be better to risk my salvation than to vote for some candidate and suffer hell-on-earth.
Luckily, I have had some good pastors who have been very sensitive to the issue of religion and politics. They did not shun the subject but rather brought up various issues and invite people to consider them and to vote according to their conscience. One of them told me that attempt to impose their own ideology on people is counter productive. I wish they have the gut to tell that to their bishop!
BoolaBoola // Nov 5, 2009 at 3:23 am
The Catholic Church has sacrificed her authority to validate marriages. There are no longer any married Catholics anywhere in the world; there are only Catholics who mistakenly believe themselves to be married.
It follows that there are no legitimate Catholics. They are all bastards.
Mormons too.
oldgal // Nov 5, 2009 at 9:37 am
Reason60, thank you, well stated.