Catholic politicians and the RC Church

Great Debates
1

Background: My mother is a Roman Catholic Republican. Pro-life.

I am an atheist and a member of no party. Pro-choice.
We were driving together to Chicago and we started discussing politics and religion. I mentioned that it seemed strange to me that Catholics would vote for Bush because Catholics and Evangelicals tend not to come at religion from the same place. She argued that it was the choice between an Evengelical and a bastardized Catholic because of Kerry’s stance on abortion.

I asked her, and now am asking the Dope at large, what responsibility toward the Church and toward non-Catholics does a Catholic in politics have? She argued that he was pro-choice and since he’s pro-choice he isn’t a good Catholic. I argued that if he has to promote all RC positions at all times even on non-Catholics in order to be a good Catholic, he would have to support silly bills like one that forbade meat on Fridays during Lent, should such a bill come up to a vote.

She argued that I was being goofy. I argued that she was being theocratic. I suspect neither of us is entirely correct. But where is the line? When does supporting a position of the RC Church (any church will do, and I welcome any argument based on another church or religion) become attempted theocracy, if ever?

2

Well, it might be a good idea to determine what the Church’s policy actually is before we determine whether it is appropriate.

To that end, I’m posting this release from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops:

From this, we determine that abortion is the only issue that carries such a risk for the Catholic officeholder - a reflection of the importance the Church places on the protection of human life. In other issues, a politician is expected to be guided by his faith, but the Church recognizes that people of goodwill may then arrive at different honorable viewpoints.

What it boils down to is that the Church doesn’t regard a pro-choice position as one that can be morally held. And, since they control the sacraments, they may deny them to people they regard as lapsed in this way.

Is it pressure? Sure. But the Church is fully within its rights to apply it. The politicians in question then have the choice to obey their conscience or remain at outs with the Church.

I don’t think it’s a violation of church-state separation any more than denial of the sacraments to Jim Crow politicians by the Archbishop of New Orleans was in the 1960’s.

3

Figures you’d see these as mutually exclusive.

4

By obey their conscience, I mean act on their pro-life beliefs.

I’m just assuming that those politicians are in fact pro-life because they’re Catholic, and Catholic doctrine is pro-life. Besides, even ardent pro-choicers invariably say they find abortion troubling, but wouldn’t deny the practice to others.

Seems circular, I know. But that’s just a reflection of the importance of the issue to the Church.

5

We weren’t arguing about the Church’s policy. What the Church wants is irrelevant. I want to hear what people think is an acceptable level of deference to religious teachings.

To use my same goofy analogy: Would it be acceptable if John Kerry were to vote to outlaw meat consumption on Fridays during Lent?

6

Let’s stay with the concrete rather than the ephemeral.

You asked what deference Catholic politicians should show. This documents shows that it is only expected that a Catholic would protect unborn children through changes in the law. No other issues are spelled out for the Catholic in quite this explicit a manner.

7

In some cases, the motive for adopting legislation is relevant. In First Amendment cases, for example, in order to restrict someone’s constitutionally protected speech (which can be done), the government must (among other things) demonstrate that the restriction substantially advances a compelling government interest. Until now, I don’t believe that furthering religious doctrine has been accepted as a compelling government interest.

8

Theocracy? The US is mostly Protestant. At best they only can agree abortion is wrong. Beyond that, the disagreements are wide.

9

Can you quote the place where they say this is uniquely important? And can you reconcile this with Europe, including Italy, where Catholic politicians are routinely pro-choice and the local church looks with bafflement on the US?

Daniel

10

Perhaps a cite is in order

The article suggests that this is a political, not a theological, decision on the church’s part. Is the Italian church just savvier than the US church? Is the US church less willing to make compromises in the face of reality? Or is there actually some chance that the US church will be effective?

The article doesn’t really explore another possibility: perhaps Italian Catholic leaders place a greater emphasis on issues such as eradicating poverty and ending war.

Daniel

11

From the quoted statement:

As far as Italy goes, I can tell you from having lived there that the society is nearly entirely secular. The only people that habitually go to church seem to be the old ladies. Everyone else seemed to me to use the Church for the important transitions in life (baptism, marriage, funeral) rather than as a constant source of inspiration and guidance.

That seems to be why the Church treads softly on the issue there. Your own cite shows that they regard intervention on the issue to be counterproductive there.

12

I think that the Vatican has also made public their view that one should not/need not be a single-issue voter. If you feel that an alternate candidate’s positions on topics other than abortion (war, social justice and human rights, death penalty, euthanasia, whatever) are more in line with your faith then it is hunky-dory to vote for a pro choice candidate.

13

That’s different, though, than saying Catholic politicians can be pro-choice. The bishops seem to think they can not morally take this position.

14

Well, that’s also different from saying what The Catholic Church believes: what you quoted was a document of American bishops. My point is that the church as a whole has not, to my knowledge, taken the stance that you impute to them.

And I’m having trouble seeing that the adverb “uniquely” can bear the load that you’re wanting it to bear. Even if they are using it to say that the issue under consideration is abortion, not the sanctity of human life, it’s not clear that they mean it’s the “only issue that carries such a risk for the Catholic officeholder.” Perhaps they mean that the issue is the only one important in a particular fashion–perhaps they mean it’s an especially timely issue.

Again: I’ve not seen a declaration from the head of the church that abortion is a more important issue than war or poverty, that politicians can get away with voting in favor of an unjust war but can never vote in favor of legalizing abortion. Can you provide me a cite to this effect?

Daniel

15

Sure.

Catholic doctrine on all of these issues is found in the Catechism. The Catechism was last revised during John Paul II’s papacy, so it can be shown to be a document that reflects church teaching during his era.

The Catechism is promulgated in Latin, and then translated for the church worldwide. It is a reflection of the values and beliefs of the universal Church, not just the American branch of it.

About abortion, the Catechism instructs the following:

The Church’s teaching on this subject cannot be clearer. Abortion is always an unmitigated evil. The Church also believes that allowing abortions makes a society less moral and just.

On war, the Catechism instructs Catholics always to work for peace. But it says this as well:

It is obvious that there is a gray area in the case of war. What one person regards as just and necessary, another may judge differently. Abortion, on the other hand, is always seen as an unmitigated evil and a danger not only to the souls that practice it, but to civil society as well.

This confirms what everybody already knows, BTW. Many American Catholics get upset with their church because they focus so strongly on abortion. If you have evidence that they shortchange this issue and give other issues higher priority, I’d dearly love to see it.

My old parish, Our Lady Queen of Peace in Arlington, VA, had a reputation as a rather left-wing church, and very active in social justice work. This parish was stridently anti-war and fought hard for living wage and affordable housing legislation locally. It also had a strong and vibrant pro-life committee.

If you have evidence to the contrary, that Catholics regard abortion as secondary to other issues, I’d love to see that.

16

The issue was on following RC guidelines for voting (and how does it become theocracy, if ever).

There isn’t much grey area about the death penalty either, Mr. Moto. Bush’s stand is unambiguous here. While he is not a Catholic and therefore not against the teachings of his church, that should make not a lick of difference to a Catholic voter.

And while obviously one must use personal judgement about a war, the Vatican had pretty strong feelings about the justness of the Iraq war - certainly about the way it was/is handled.

War aside, given a choice between a politician who opposes abortion but can/will do nothing to stop it and one who (occasionally/usually) opposes abortion but can/will do nothing to stop it and who enthusiastically endorses executions, the latter is the one that Catholics should vote for?

Catholics in the US cannot generally vote all of their beliefs at once, as the anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-stem cell research party is also the more-pro-death-penalty-than thou, anti-social justice party.

17

Neither of your quotes directly address what I was saying, although they come close.

What it does NOT instruct, and what was made clear that it did NOT instruct in the recent brouhaha re: whether Kerry should be denied communion, was that “can never vote in favor of legalizing abortion.”

Now, it comes pretty close. It more or less says that such a vote is a violation of the child’s right. However, unlike the previous paragraph that mandates excommunication for someone who participates in an abortion, this paragraph prescribes no penalties for those who create laws legalizing abortion.

Huh? Is “they” the church in the last sentence above? If so, I’m saying just the opposite: the American Church focuses too strongly on abortion, shortchanging other issues.

Or did I somehow miss the to-do last election where prominent church leaders were threatening to withhold communion from Kerry on account of his support for the Iraq War?

Italian Catholics seem to regard it as secondary; see my previous citation. Note that the citation is from a very pro-life source, and accordingly doesn’t interview any of those Catholics whom it talks about (i.e., the ones who regard abortion as a non-issue), even though they’re the focus of the article.

Daniel

18

Nope, there’s some ambiguity here as well. From the Catechism:

And in fact, the death penalty for crimes in the United States measured against the totality of crimes committed is indeed very rare. It is true that the Pope believes as a practical matter that all executions can morally be stopped. It is also true that Catholics with influence in this area are not being pressured by the Church as vigorously as those with influence over abortion policy.

Well, that’s true to a point. You do have to pick your battles. The instructions from the bishops this year framed for their parishioners where they thought the battlegrounds were, and where intervention could actually bring about social change.

19

I strongly disagree that the death penalty is very rare in the US, in the sense that the Catechism intends. It’s not “practically nonexistent.” And the standard used is nothing like “authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.”

I don’t see the wiggle room you describe.

Yes–and Italian bishops framed a completely different set of issues. Which was my original point: you can’t take declarations from an American council of bishops as indicative of what the Church as a whole espouses.

The American church seems to be a good deal more conservative than the church as a whole.

Daniel

20

Actually, the American Church is one of the more liberal ones worldwide. That is one of the reasons you’ll likely never see an American pope.

The Church in Africa, Latin America and much of the Pacific is considerably more conservative than most American parishes.