Mommy Life

October 9, 2008 7:38 AM

Voters Guide for Serious Catholics

Catholics aren't the only ones who might find these resources helpful:

Also, click below for a downloadable print version:

Thanks, Michelle!

Love,

Posted in Campaign 2008, Catholicism | Permalink

Comments

It's interesting how the "5 non-negotiable issues" listed in this pamphlet seem to contrast the issues stated as being never morally acceptable in Faithful Citizenship, the resource published by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. In that resource, “abortion, intentional attacks on civilians in war, and the use of weapons of mass destruction or other weapons that cause disproportionate harm or that cannot be deployed in ways that distinguish between civilians and soldiers" are named as non-negotiable moral issues. As a Catholic, I tend to go with the whole conference of bishops over a political lay catholic organization.

Posted by: Adele | October 9, 2008 7:56 AM

Adele - as a recent revert to Catholicism, I am not up on all the politics going on at upper levels, however, from things I've read recently, it seems that more and more bishops are clarifying the question of whether war and abortion carry the same weight as we consider choosing public officials.

I will quote from Bishop Martino of Scranton's letter, in which he unequivocally states that abortion "is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate."

Another argument goes like this: “As wrong as abortion is, I don't think it is the only relevant ‘life’ issue that should be considered when deciding for whom to vote.” This reasoning is sound only if other issues carry the same moral weight as abortion does, such as in the case of euthanasia and destruction of embryos for research purposes. Health care, education, economic security, immigration, and taxes are very important concerns. Neglect of any one of them has dire consequences as the recent financial crisis demonstrates. However, the solutions to problems in these areas do not usually involve a rejection of the sanctity of human life in the way that abortion does. Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life. Consider this: the finest health and education systems, the fairest immigration laws, and the soundest economy do nothing for the child who never sees the light of day. It is a tragic irony that “pro-choice” candidates have come to support homicide – the gravest injustice a society can tolerate – in the name of “social justice.”

Even the Church’s just war theory has moral force because it is grounded in the principle that innocent human life must be protected and defended. Now, a person may, in good faith, misapply just war criteria leading him to mistakenly believe that an unjust war is just, but he or she still knows that innocent human life may not be harmed on purpose. A person who supports permissive abortion laws, however, rejects the truth that innocent human life may never be destroyed. This profound moral failure runs deeper and is more corrupting of the individual, and of the society, than any error in applying just war criteria to particular cases.Furthermore, National Right to Life reports that 48.5 million abortions have been performed since 1973. One would be too many. No war, no natural disaster, no illness or disability has claimed so great a price.In saying these things in an election year, I am in very good company. My predecessor, Bishop Timlin, writing his pastoral letter on Respect Life Sunday 2000, stated the case eloquently:

Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.

For the entire letter, see http://www.catholic.org/printer_friendly.php?id=29838§ion=Cathcom

Posted by: barbara | October 9, 2008 8:15 AM

The "Conscience and the Catholic Voter" put out by the USCCB (United States Conference of Catholic Bishops states:"It would be refreshing if we could find candidates
whose records, party platforms, and personal commitments embody the full range of the Church’s social teaching, reasonable as that teaching is. Unfortunately that seldom happens. That is why we must have a well-formed conscience capable of giving each issue its proper moral weight and making other important distinctions and judgments. For example, a Catholic may never vote for candidates precisely because they advocate and advance intrinsic moral evils like abortion; to do so is to cooperate formally (intentionally) with a grave evil. And while Faithful Citizenship acknowledges that one may vote for a
politician who supports pro-abortion policies “only for truly grave moral reasons,” a
conscientious voter must question what grave moral issue rises to the level of nearly
49 million lives lost to the evil of abortion."

In the Old Testament God tells us, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." Jesus tells us himself in the New testament, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

This being the case, not one Christian in the United States should be voting for Barrack Obama, whoose anti-life pro abortion record is so clear. There are other issues at stake in this election that are serious, but none so grave in God's eyes. Some may argue that the economy is more important or the differences between McCain and Obama on our national security trump everything else....however the Church and God's Word plainly tell us that God's priority is the dignity and sanctity of human life.

Posted by: Tripp | October 9, 2008 10:41 AM

Adele, first, you are correct--it is important to distinguish the difference in the teaching authority of the Conference of Catholic Bishops (Faithful Citizenship) versus Catholic Answers (Voters Guide for Serious Catholics). Obviously, any official statement from the episcopate would require more attention and adherence than a tract distributed by an apologetics organization. But, having said that, I think you are quite wrong to pose a contrast between the statements from the bishops and Catholic Answers.

The Catholic Answers tract does not contradict or “contrast” anything in bishops’ statement. Instead, it highlights many of the very issues that the bishops themselves cite as high priority considerations for the American Catholic voter.

Adele, you quote “abortion, intentional attacks on civilians in war, and the use of weapons of mass destruction or other weapons that cause disproportionate harm or that cannot be deployed in ways that distinguish between civilians and soldiers" as somehow contrasting the Catholic Answers tract. First, it is important for readers to know that the 2 issues, apart from abortion, which you cite occur in paragraph 68 of the Bishops statement and in no way represent the full contextual message of the bishops discussion on intrinsic evils.

You are correct that the Church has very strong teachings which would require the 3 issues you cite to be addressed within the body of Catholic social teaching. However, the Catholic Answers tract does not suggest that intentional attacks on civilians in war or the use of weapon of mass destruction are not important, as you seem to be implying. Instead, Catholic Answers chooses to address, in addition to the “preeminent” issue of abortion, 4 other issues which you have ignored in your own listing.

Within the text of Faithful Citizenship, the bishops provide a 7 point thematic structure for understanding Catholic social teaching. They clearly state that when applying Church teaching, one must realize that certain principles can never be violated. In doing so the bishops emphasize that there are certain intrinsic evils which “must always be rejected and opposed and must never be supported or condoned.”

In paragraph 90 of their statement, the bishops write: “not all issues are equal. . .some involve matters of intrinsic evil that can never be supported.” The Catholic Answers tract cites 5 of those intrinsic evils (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and homosexual marriage), as clear examples of non-negotiable issues which the bishops specifically address within their own statement.

The CA tract is not an exhaustive listing of all the non-negotiable issues, to be sure, but it certainly doesn’t contrast the bishops’ statement as you seem to be suggesting.

Posted by: Franchelle | October 9, 2008 11:03 AM

Let me give a bit of perspective here about where I'm coming from: I actually worked with CCHD (Catholic Campaign for Human Development) during the 2004 elections, going to local churches to have discussion groups about Faithful Citizenship. During those sessions, parishoners often brought their copy of the Catholic Answers booklet basically to say, "Those other issues you're mentioning aren't important-- these five are the only ones that count." And that certainly is not what Faithful Citizenship, let alone our rich and full heritage of catholic social teaching-- has to say about the matter.

I am passionately pro-life, and agree that respect for life has to be the cornerstone of any world philosophy. But being pro-life is a radical worldview that certainly must begin with opposition to abortion but extends to opposition to the death penalty, unjust war, and many other issues, some of which are mentioned in Catholic Answers (cloning, etc).

Where does that leave me politically? Not comfortable in either major political party. The issues in Catholic Answers were clearly hand picked to align with the ideas of the republican party from the many moral issues that the Catholic Church stands up for. Why didn't the death penalty make the list? Why didn't economic justice make the list with other "non-life" issues such as gay marriage? I'm not a liberal crusader here-- I'm just saying that sometimes being a moral voice in the world is a messy thing that doesn't fit with pre-existing categories-- that doesn't mean that we should compromise our message.

Posted by: Adele | October 9, 2008 4:51 PM

Adele, thank you for your response.

First, I think your assertion that the non-negotiable issues mentioned in the CA tract are “hand picked to align with the Republican party” is quite unfair. It is true that the Republican party has been largely supportive of the Catholic position on the issues CA cites, but I think one could make a far better case that the CCHD is quite more aligned with the politics of Barak Obama (as he was the recipient of tens of thousands of dollars from the CCHD in the 1980’s for his socio-political organizations) than Catholic Answers is aligned with the Republican party. I would not hold too tightly to the notion that Republicans or Democrats have a monopoly on manipulating our Catholic social teaching.

That being said and politics aside, the real point of the matter is that the non-negotiable issues mentioned in the CA tract are, in fact, non-negotiable issues most pertinent to the American voter today.

You are rightly frustrated by the parishioners who believe that the 5 CA issues “are the only ones that count.” As I said before, the CA tract is not an exhaustive exposition of the whole measure of Catholic social teaching. Instead, it serves as a guide in dealing with those non-negotiable issues about which many Catholics are either confused or conflicted and those issues which hold particular prominence in the current political climate. For instance, the dehumanizing system of owning slaves is also a non-negotiable according to our Church's social doctrine, but CA didn't list it because it's not an American problem right now.

You ask: “why didn’t the death penalty make the list? Why didn’t economic justice make the list. . .?”

First, capital punishment is actually “negotiable”. . . or, to be more precise, it is sometimes permitted within the context of Catholic social teaching, thus it does not qualify as a “non-negotiable” on par with abortion, euthanasia, ESCR, human cloning and gay marriage. You may certainly hold the opinion, as do many if not most of our American bishops, that capital punishment as it is applied in the United States misses the mark for moral legitimacy, but the death penalty is not always forbidden as are the 5 “non-negotiables” mentioned in the CA tract.

You also mention “unjust war” as another non-negotiable. Quite frankly, this is an odd point to make. Who—Republican or Democrat—advocates “unjust war”? Now, perhaps you were simply addressing the topic of war (to be distinguished from “unjust war”) in general. This, again, is an issue about which Catholics are free to disagree. The issue of war is not a “non-negotiable” and, therefore, it has no place on a “non-negotiables” list. The Church is very clear that there are legitimate reasons for a country to wage war. The 5 “non-negotiables” listed in the CA tract, on the other hand, are never acceptable within Catholic social doctrine.

And lastly, you mention “economic justice” as another issue missing from the CA tract. Again, I would remind you that the CA tract was a listing of non-negotiable issues for a Catholic to consider when voting. “Non-negotiable” means that a faithful Catholic may not disagree with the Church’s teaching on any of these 5 issues.

The Catholic Church does not outline a socio-economic system which best employs our Christian responsibility for charity, generosity, and care for the poor and marginalized. The Catholic Church does not regulate as a matter of doctrine what percentage of one’s income the government should collect in taxes. The Catholic Church does not mandate a social welfare state, as some Catholic liberals would suggest. Quite simply, the Church puts forth a robust body of teaching which advocates for the protection of workers and their property, value for a person’s work, care for the poor and clear instruction about the problems inherent to consumerism, socialism, capitalism, and communism alike within any economic society. As such, it would be very imprudent to list “economic justice” as a “non-negotiable” as Catholics are free to disagree on how a society best implements this ideal of “economic justice.”

Adele, there simply aren’t any candidates running for the office of the President of the United States today arguing against or disregarding “economic justice” as an important matter. This is an issue that both candidates are working hard to articulate in the ways they understand it. A Catholic may legitimately oppose or support any given tax code and many of various economic expenditures posed by either of our political candidates, but a Catholic may never support abortion, euthanasia, ESCR, human cloning, and homosexual marriage. These remain non-negotiable and that is why the issues you bring up didn’t make the CA “non-negotiables” list.

Posted by: Franchelle | October 9, 2008 11:10 PM

Please go to http://www.fathercorapi.com/ and find out authentic catholic teaching from the catechism don't believe that any issue or combination of issues is more important to the basic right to life of the unborn.

Posted by: Joyce | October 29, 2008 5:04 PM

Post a comment