Feb
25
Morally justifying immoral voting behavior
February 25, 2008 |
Via Jay Anderson comes this Christopher Blosser post on Catholics in the Public Squre relating an attack on those well-known right-wing neanderthals known as the United States Bishops.
First up, we have Bishop DiMarzio of Brooklyn explaining that not all issues are of equal importance.
A “hierarchy of values” exists, which means not all political issues are of equal value, said Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn.
“Our faith must inform our political decisions,” he said, and Catholic voters are obliged to distinguish “between moral evil,” such as abortion, “and matters of prudential judgment,” such as tuition tax credits.
Notice that the Bishop does not say that other issues are unimportant or are to be disregarded. He is merely stating - correctly - that there are some issues which are of greater moral importance. The Bishop adds:
“Only in circumstances that are extraordinarily hard to contemplate may a Catholic voter support a proponent of so great an intrinsic moral evil,” the bishop said.
Bishop DiMarzio also questioned legislative efforts “that would undermine the family by redefining marriage.” He said that “pandering to a small but well-funded special interest group, our leadership in Albany would undermine the institution that is the bedrock of our society.”
Saying that the business of government is to protect the common good, the bishop asked how the state benefits by extending “the benefits of marriage” to same-sex couples.
Again, he is not saying that you absolutely can never vote for a pro-choice politician. But one may do so only for other ”morally grave reasons.” Or, as the USCCB puts it:
There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position [on abortion] may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil.
It must be stressed that you cannot vote for someone because they are pro-choice.
Of course these common-sense guidelines are just too much for certain individuals. Here is the response of National Catholic Distorter reporter Joe Feuerherd:
Like most Maryland Democrats, I voted for Sen. Barack Obama in the recent Potomac Primary. By doing so, according to the leaders of my church, I put my soul at risk. That’s right, says the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — tap the touch screen for a pro-abortion-rights candidate, and you’re probably punching your ticket to Hell.
Ummm, no, that’s not really what they said. But if it suits your purposes better to create an utterly ridiculous strawman, hey, who am I to stop you?
To Catholics like me who oppose liberal abortion laws but also think that other issues — war or peace, health care, just wages, immigration, affordable housing, torture — actually matter, the idea that abortion trumps everything, all the time, no matter what, is both bad religion and bad civics. It’s not, for God’s sake, as though we’re in Nazi Germany and supporting Hitler.
Or is it? Amazingly, at least one influential bishop has made just that comparison publicly, and it’s a good bet that many others believe it privately.
“In our country we have, for the most part, allowed the party of death and the court system it has produced to eliminate, since 1973, upwards of 40 million of our fellow citizens without allowing them to see the light of day,” wrote Rockford, Ill., Bishop Thomas Doran in 2006. “No doubt, we shall soon outstrip the Nazis in doing human beings to death.” He continued, “We know . . . that adherents of one political party would place us squarely on the road to suicide as a people.”
That Doran forgets his history (five of the seven justices who supported Roe v. Wade were actually appointed by Republican presidents) doesn’t obscure his point. He is not alone among Catholic bishops in his attempt to anathematize the Democrats, to make the party and its candidates illegitimate in the mind of the electorate. George Weigel — papal biographer and intellectual guru to the new generation of conservative bishops — said as much, as the wafer wars reached a fevered pitch. “The Republican Party is a more secure platform from which Catholics can work on the great issues of the day than a party in thrall to abortion ‘rights,’ gay activism, and a utilitarian approach to the biotech future that is disturbingly reminiscent of ‘Brave New World,’ ” he wrote in his syndicated column.
Gotta love the obfuscation here. Feuerhard is now going to pretend that the Bishops have said that other issues don’t matter. Again, this is not what the Bishops - or the Church for that matter - says. And of course Fueurhard seems all too willing to gloss over the fact that the intentional killing of 50 million souls over the past 35+ years just might be something on par with the evil of the Holocaust. Oh no, that’s just hyperbole spouted by those evil right-wing Republicans. And of course it is Feuerhard who is making the unneccessary Republican/Democrat divide on the issue. One need look no further than the reaction against pro-choice Republicans such as Rudy Giuliani to realize that you don’t get a free pass because you have an R next to your name.
The next paragraph is staggering. Remember this was written by someone who writes for a “Catholic” publication.
This fire-and-brimstone approach to the ballot box is the long-term bequest of a conservative pope, John Paul II, enacted by a U.S. hierarchy appointed during his 27-year tenure and now by his successor, Pope Benedict XVI. John Paul’s key criterion in choosing the men who lead the United States’ 194 dioceses was their vocal support for church teachings that have been rejected in whole (birth control) or in part (women’s ordination and abortion) by many Catholics in the pews and the broader American culture.
Ah, here’s the rub. Does it not seem we really have a fix on what’s bugging Joe Feuerhard? It’s not just that the Catholic Church has prioritized the issue of abortion, it’s that the whole Church is now in the hands of those wiley right-wingers John Paul II and Benedict XVI. Those neantherdals are taking the Church backwards. Instead of simply following the wishes of the masses, those evil authoritarians are - horrors! - clinging to the two thousand year old teachings of the Church. Ladies and gentlemen, I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Feuerhard’s problems lie a little deeper than he’s letting on.
As to the death penalty, immigration, the Iraq war, health care and other social justice issues, these fall into the realm of “prudential judgment” — areas where Catholics of goodwill, say the bishops, can disagree. This, naturally enough, provides convenient cover for Catholic candidates who support the war, think the death penalty should be expanded, would leave millions uninsured and oppose immigration reform.
Yeah, because you see, none of these are issues where the Church has clear, absolute guideliness other than on a somewhat general basis. There is no Church prohibition against the death penalty, or war, nor are there any specific mandates for, say, universal health care. That said, it is not as though the Church is silent on these issues. One only has to reach for the Catechism to realize that one must approach these issues from a certain point-of-view. It is not a copout to say that these are issues of “prudential judgment” - because they simply are. But no one ought to advocate casting one’s Catholicism aside when approaching these issues, and certainly the Bishops are not advocating this course.
Abortion is such an important matter for two reasons, probably interrelated. First of all, it is simply an evil act which never can be condoned. It entails the brutal murder of the most innocent among us. Secondly, it is clearly and roundly condemned by the Church. This is not a matter of debate. One cannot come to a prayerful discernment that abortion is somehow morally justified. There is no wiggle room on this issue. And when one thinks about it, it is one of the few political issues that is so clearly black-and-white as far as the Church is concerned.
This year’s presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, will be deemed worthy of support because of his consistent antiabortion voting record. But does anyone believe that outlawing abortion, or even turning the issue back to the states, will be anywhere near the top of McCain’s priorities?
No, and I think a fair number of Catholics are uneasy with McCain precisely because this is not a big issue for him. But we also recognize that we have a helluva better shot with McCain to accomplish these goals than with either Obama or Clinton.
Meanwhile, is it fair for a Catholic like me to suspect that the liberal economic policies of the Democratic candidate, whether Obama or Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, will result in less dire poverty and thus perhaps fewer abortions? And isn’t that supposed to be the goal?
Fair? Yes. Foolish and naive - you betcha.
Why should non-Catholic Americans care about the bishops’ right-wing lurch?
The right-wing lurch of Bishops? How far to the left on the political spectrum do you have to be to believe that the Bishops are lurching right. Well, perhaps compared to where they were 20 years ago this is a more “conservative” group, but no one would mistake a gathering of the USCCB for a CPAC convention.
There’s little hope, unfortunately, that the bishops will adopt a more pragmatic approach to achieving their aims anytime soon. Younger American priests, the pool from which future bishops will be chosen, overwhelmingly embrace the agenda enunciated by John Paul II.
From your lips to God’s ears.
And what better way to end such a glorious column than with a little moral sanctimony:
So what’s a pro-life, pro-family, antiwar, pro-immigrant, pro-economic-justice Catholic like me supposed to do in November? That’s an easy one. True to my faith, I’ll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations. Sounds like I’ll be voting for the Democrat — and the bishops be damned.
And there are those in some corners who think it’s us right-wingers that have no respect for the Bishops.
Update: Once again courtesy of Jay Anderson, here are a couple of other responses to Feuerhard - one by Deal Hudson, and one by Margaret Cabaniss.
Comments
4 Comments so far
Google Reader- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Excellent job of fisking.
Great entry.
I do think his analysis of who he should vote for is wrong though.
“I’ll vote for the candidate who offers the best hope of ending an unjust war, who promotes human dignity through universal health care and immigration reform, and whose policies strengthen families and provide alternatives to those in desperate situations.”
Best hope of ending the war=McCain (Paul would be a close second whether or not you support his method)
Universal Health Care= Since we already have universal care-you can get care if you go to the hospital- just not efficient care. McCain wins again, free market always makes things, including health care more efficient.
Strengthen Families=Well while maybe not McCain….I don’t him on family issues……It is definitely not Hillary and Barack doesn’t understand policy well enough to understand a pro-family policy if it bit him in the keister.
Answer= Even if religion is not part of the equation Feuerherd is wrong on all cylinders.
A simple summation is that, like most Catholic leftists, abortion just isn’t a very important issue to Feuerherd. That he told the bishops to go to Hell doesn’t surprise me. I believe that has been the editorial policy for NCR for some decades now.
[...] Morally justifying immoral voting behavior [...]