Someone needs the thank the US Catholic Bishops for re-releasing the 2012 voters guide for the good of the Catholic faithful once again this year. But a survey of today’s headlines shows that expressions of thankfulness will likely be few and far between.
Among those who will not be offering much in the way of gratitude are the secular media, conservative Catholics, liberal Catholics, and most of the rest of US Catholics. Of the many reports I have perused, most were at least as interested in the Bishop’s long struggle to assert their teaching authority within the US Catholic Church as they were in the content and usefulness of the document.
Additionally, it was noted that only a minority of Catholics are even aware that the Bishops offer a voters guide (they’ve been doing this for four decades), and even fewer will make much use of it. Among the conservative Catholic opinions, there is notable frustration that the Bishops do not clearly support voting against abortion as an ethical mandate for all Catholic voters; although, some surmise that the revised introduction hints towards this.
Liberal Catholics are once again at least somewhat happy to have a non-partisan document that puts immigration and poverty alongside abortion and traditional marriage, and emphasizes the use of conscience. Although, they also have to at least begrudgingly acknowledge that among the issues raised, abortion is the only one defined as “intrinsically evil” and that their idea of the use of conscience may be discontinuous with the way this recently been expressed among the bishops.
So what are the bishops to do? Continue to make everyone unhappy? I think so and I thank them for it.
US Catholicism is a diverse faith with internal tensions that become greatly exacerbated when political partisanship enters the question. In order to stay relevant the Bishops must speak out against all injustices and therefore avoid partisanship that comes at the expense of turning a blind eye to significant issues. The 2012 presidential race looks to be shaping up as a race in which no candidate will be overwhelmingly favored by Catholics who seek to uphold all the concerns raised by the voters guide and do not stack the Bishop’s concerns into a clear hierarchy; this is a move the Bishops themselves are unwilling to make against the consternation of strong pro-life voters.
President Obama has recently offended the Bishops and some Catholics with a mandate that Catholic employers provide full coverage on contraceptives, including forms some define as abortive. Although US Catholics overwhelming reject Catholic teaching on contraception, those who see this as an infringement of religious freedom may rally to the Bishop’s support. Additionally, in 2008 Obama appealed to moderate pro-life voters with the promise that, although he would uphold abortion rights, he would attempt to decrease abortions by addressing underlying causes such as poverty. However, his record in office will certainly be used against him on this issue in the upcoming election.
On the other hand, several Catholic leaders recently rebuked Gingrich and Santorum for racist remarks made during campaign speeches. Aside from this, neither of these two Catholic presidential hopefuls is entirely palatable for broad Catholic appeal. Aside from the questions of social justice and immigration reform raised in the voters guide, Gingrich has a well-known checkered past. Likewise, Santorum’s creationist views are in contrast to accepted Catholic Biblical exegesis and his apparent support for sodomy laws (at least for homosexuals) raise questions of privacy and separation of church and state. Romney is no more immune than the other candidates but may have fewer overt difficulties; his biggest problems may be the inconsistencies in his record and how he might present himself in a general election after having attempted to move far right throughout the primaries.
Finally, an issue the voters guide raises, and one that is rarely addressed well, is the question of conscience. The extremes would say that conscience is either submission to established teaching, thereby making the “intrinsic evil” of abortion the end-all in political choice, or justify the use of conscience for virtually any position, a sentiment the Bishops more strongly reject in one of the few revisions made to the 2012 guide from its 2008 version.
But this question is trivialized when the use of conscience is construed as only where a Catholic “lands” on a particular issue. Aside from this, timing and plausibility should be considered as key aspects to evaluating one’s decision to support a particular candidate. That is, issues apart from context should not determine a vote alone; they must be weighed with their likelihood to actually effect change and the possible extent of this change. Abortion is paradigmatic; for decades it has locked in a certain number of votes, and yet strong sentiments during election season rarely translate into much political action for either party. A conscientious Catholic voter should not only seek a candidate with similar convictions, but should weigh the likelihood of change on any issue against that of others while considering the relative importance these hold in their conscience.
I want to conclude by offering my gratitude to the US Bishops for explaining Catholic teaching on a range of issues that ought to factor into a Catholic voters’ decision making process. The Bishops do so in spite of a majority of US Catholics who, for whatever reasons, simply are not listening or are unwilling to listen, some who will remain single-issue voters regardless of the guide’s attention to several issues, some who will find a way to make the guide support whatever choice they make, and a field of candidates who will doubtlessly encourage further rifts among the Catholic faithful as their campaigns progress. In 2012 Catholics will undoubtedly refuse to vote in bloc, and I thank the Bishops for at least attempting to help us ground our convictions in an articulation of Catholic teaching.
Abortion is the defining issue in any election. Our rights as citizens of the United States, are all dependent on our right to life. The bishops have a moral responsiblity to teach the faithful that there are greater and lesser evils, and that abortion stands out as the gravest of evils because it denies all the rights we who were born have. There are grave evils in the world, but killing an unborn child in the womb is
evil. The bishops have not spoke clearly enough on this issue so many catholics give themselves the “Choice to vote for a pro abortion candidate.
In Jesus, through mary,
Chris Notzon
I am sorry that the only response has been to press for “the right to Life” and no response has come from the “the right to have an unpoisoned start to life”. Too many children have been born, not to a loving procreation, but one poisoned by a poisonous coming together of cell and sperm. My understanding of counselling convinces me that the child can be seriously damaged psychologically in the womb and sometimes it may be appriate to lovingly terminate the pregnancy and not inflict an unwanted pregnacy on a damaged woman. Perhaps some fetuses may need a “right not to be born”.
We do not have the right to judge God’s creation…the child has been created by our Loving God for His design and His purpose…ours is to support His gifts…not judge what is value! He has made that decision already!
Dear Diane, Perhaps you might like to review your view of what is God’s creation. Does God rape women to create children or commit incest? You write, “the child has been created by our Loving God for His design.” May I suggest that we forget that God in his goodness gave us freewill. Our expression of that freewill is not often God acting but humans acting and not always for the best or according to God’s will. I am sorry to say that some children are created by sinful and malevolent actions and not the loving coming together of two consenting and intentional adults.
I see Chris has replied. I have been trying to listen to God for over 70 years, I can not guarantee that what I say is not contrary to his will, but I assure you that my correspondence is driven by a will to be a voice for God, illuminated by listening to his voice over those years. The book that I would commend to you to help understand the problem of the exercise of Love and Power is Tony Campolo’s Chose Love not Power. It is too easy to use the wrong power without divine love.
Bless you for your caring. May God’s Holy Spirit ever guide you. David
I can understand your point but I very much disagree. A life conceived deserves a chance. No one has the right to choose death for another even when done lovingly.
David,
Your comment is so much against the Divine love of God, and so contradictory to his plan, that I am convinced that any comment I make to guide you towards the truth will be beyond your grasp. Instead I will pray that the Holy Spirit will enlighten your Heart, and mind to truth, and that Our Blessed Mother will lead you to the Sweet love of Jesus. “Am I my brothers keeper?” Yes. Do I believe my brother in Christ will listen? No. So count on my prayers instead. That will shed the light on this issue better than any debate.
In Jesus, thru Mary
Chris, Do look at my letter above to Diane. I know that you wrote with good intent, but it is often good to sometimes realize that what we say to others may be most appropriate for ourselves. Because the context for the correspondence is our political decisions, can I commend Tony Campolo’s Red Letter Christians. He is writing a Citizen’s Guide to Faith and Politics. You may feel that he is with you on the subject of abortion , but please take note of his later book Choose Love not Power and you may get a sense of how we need to be careful as to how we execise political power, especially in relation to the priorities that we espouse. So look at his chapter on abortion and realize how society can be complicit in the conditions that make abortion desirable to women at the bottom of our economic pile.
Diane, Chris & David,
I want to thank you all for reading and commenting on this article. I had intended to simply express my gratitude and sympathy to the bishops for the task of speaking faithfully and intelligently in the face of a culture of extreme partisanship and sound-bite rhetoric. As I feel some responsibility for having sparked this discussion, I’d like to offer a few brief thoughts to the issues you each have raised.
Chris, you’re affirmation of Catholicism’s stance against abortion as a right is surely representative of our church’s teaching. However, I hesitate to read the bishops as being lax on this point. Instead, Catholic thought suggests that we must make careful decisions about voting that factor in various complexities. Thus, the choice is not simply voting pro-life or pro-choice; we must consider the likelihood of action, the other policy outcomes and the like. For example a pro-life incumbent who has vehemently opposed abortions rights every election cycle, but failed to work for any meaningful changes during his term may not be a viable vote against a pro-choice candidate who, while clearly diverging from Catholic teaching on abortion rights, nonetheless has sponsored legislation (perhaps alleviating poverty, promoting girl’s sports, etc.) that has had a real impact on decreasing the number of abortions. Thus, we do not have the luxury of simply voting on ideology, because it may well be being used as a vote-getting ploy; instead we must factor in all considerations. After decades of political stagnation on this issue, I’d suggest that anyone who offers any alternative way of decreasing the numbers and perceived need for abortion should be given consideration since the pro-life/pro-choice debate seems to be accomplishing very little.
Also, I would add that your reply to David ought to have included a request for prayers for yourself as well. I understand that you feel David represents a position far from God’s truth as you’ve come to know it, but I think anytime discussion feels impossible we need to invoke God to reestablish in both parties the means of communication. That is not a judgement on either of your statements, simply an acknowledgement of God’s transformative power and a prudent acknowledgement of our own limited vision.
David, your initial post seems to be taking basically an argument for euthanasia and casting it into a prenatal scenario. While this position always carries virtuous compassion, a the official Catholic position is that it is misguided in failing to adequately acknowledge the implications of the fundamental right to life. That’s more or less descriptive. Constructively I’d add that the position does not take potential seriously, for healthy human beings can possibly arise from disastrous beginning, and given the possibility the right of anyone to end that potential is called into question. On the other hand, I think the argument does carry more merit, when it considers immanent terminal conditions of the life under consideration. But that, I assume is a much more circumscribed scenario than what you have in mind.
Diane, you’ve briefly stated a sentiment at the basis of Catholic teaching on abortion; that life is a good beyond the reach of human judgement. On the other hand, a corollary to this logic seems to be a radical pacifism which neither Catholic tradition or most politicians embrace (though I believe Catholicism is moving in this direction). So if you’re interested I think two challenges present themselves: 1) How to explain why Catholicism takes a radical (in a good sense) stance on the right to life in regard to abortion, but makes more nuanced considerations elsewhere. 2) How to respond to David’s challenge of taking your objective assertions about the dignity of life and bring them into contact with the chaos, violence and sinfulness of human experience where dispositions of compassion lead some to reconsider such claims.
Thanks again for being a part of this discussion. I hope to post a follow-up article, which takes account of some of these concerns, sometime after the election.
Jake, I appreciate the the long, thoughtful and nuanced response to the discussion about your original article. The call to ecumenical dialog is answered in your words. I certainly beseech the prayers of all who might read this, because I have met people in my past who seem to be able to speak to hearts of a large group of diverse people–a gift I long to receive. It seems a huge challenge to bridge the distance to people “on the other side” when I reflect upon a simple Catholic Prayer: “O my God, I believe all the truths which the catholic church teaches because you have made them known.” My daily work is to conform my own soul to the will and mind of an all-loving and immutable God.
Hi Jake,
Unless we have clear and concrete knowledge that a candidate intends to abuse the trust of the voters by not following through on his or her promise to protect life, then we would be reaching for future breaches of trust that do not yet exist. We are called to a particular level of trust in this matter when we vote. We are also called to further action after we vote to hold the candidate to his or her promises. In contrast, if we vote for an incumbant or candidate which has openly professed his or her will to promote an agenda that does not give protection to the defenseless unborn, then we are culpable in the evils that follow from the legislative acts of this person when he uses his or her office to promote a culture of death. There are so many evils that exist in the world, such as hunger, poverty, war, drug addiction etc. None carry the moral weight of abortion because the unborn is truly the most defenseless of life. If tomorrow, laws protecting our life were to be struck down, and we found that there was “open season on life” we would surely sing a different tune. I am happy to always error on the side of life when it comes to my voting. If I were to do otherwise and vote for a pro-abortion candidate who promises to cure every other evil under the sun, I would still betray the innocent unborn. Lets look at it another way. If a person threatens to pass legislation taking away Jake’s right to life, but he or she at least passes excellent legislation which will create jobs, solve immigration troubles, stop the death penalty, eliminate hunger and war etc. I will still not vote for that person because he is openly denying your right to life. ‘What would it profit a man if he were gain the whole world, and lose his soul in the process” One final analogy. If I invite you to dinner and serve you a delicious meal, and great tasting wine, you might thank me for it. But if you find that I spit in the main course, and or the wine, the meal and the wine are both ruined, and you will not partake of it. “let us call what is good good, and what is evil evil”.
Hi Chris,
It is clear that we have different readings of the political situation. I am less trustworthy of politicians generally and see the pro-life/pro-choice debate as a virtual stalemate for several decades now, and, unfortunately, often little more than a political ploy. This colors my understanding of how much good a pro-life vote actually accomplishes.
It is interesting you use the term “culture of death” yet sidestep the fullest formulation this term takes when used by recent popes; that is, it begins with contraception, is particularly exemplified by abortion and leads to capital punishment, euthanasia, war, poverty, environmental degradation, etc. While picking up the term, you drop the broader context to make a reductionist reading centered on abortion alone. I feel this is inadequate as the intention of the “culture of death” critique is to show the extent and interrelatedness of modern disrespect for live. We cannot pretend that voting against abortion somehow cleanses us from all the other ways we remain implicated in the culture of death through our voting, which your argument appears to do.
Your argument sets abortion as the foundational issue of the culture of death, such that nothing good can come if this essential piece is missing, a sentiment shared by some, but clearly not all US bishops. I take this logic, as exhibited in your dinner analogy, to be a “you can’t build on a foundation of sand” sort of argument. That argument is good for as far as it goes; unfortunately I do not believe it goes so far as to extend to the pragmatic and complex considerations involved in voting, the complications of which, I feel, the bishops do a much better job of addressing. Your argument pertains to how to construct a logical, cohesive ethical system; one begins with fundamentals and moves from there. Yet your denial that real-world pragmatic considerations may warrant voting at odds with the ideal leads you to a few problems. 1) This perspective believes legalization of abortion is the primary issue so that relief of poverty and other factors that have been shown to reduce the actual rates of abortion are not worthy of consideration. Here it seems you are more opposed to the idea of abortion than to reducing the actual number of abortions. 2) Your argument assumes that society is generally logical, that actions necessarily follow convictions, and that a fundamental mistake in a belief system dooms the whole project. This discounts the very real good many people with pro-choice convictions have brought into the world and undermines any hope for dialogue. 3) This gets you in the awkward position of denying that other evils can possibly add up to the evil of abortion. Setting abortion over and against poverty and war are particularly interesting. It is well known that poverty significantly contributes to increased rates of abortion, so by ending poverty one is decreasing abortions. Additionally, all wars carry civilian casualties, Just War Theory has traditionally been able to account for these. Yet this always includes the possibility of pregnant women among the death toll. If one is truly set against ever disrespecting the unborn’s right to life it would seem logically necessary to be a pacifist, rather than counting war as a somewhat less important matter. I grant that the “culture of death” concept holds a particular emphasis on abortion, but this is not its singular concern. By making it so, your argument twists the critique from showing interconnectedness to holding abortion in opposition to the legitimacy of other serious concerns.
At any rate, I doubt I have changed your mind on anything, but I thank you for offering your perspective. Clearly our views on the implications of belief for pragmatic actions are quite divergent. I hope, at least, I have given you something to consider in regards to the USCCB’s decision to take a less radical stand on this issue than the one you propose.
In the future I will try to refrain from posting comments nearly as long as the article itself!