I believe there can be an interesting debate on the contents of the article below from which I have extracted some excerpts Link.
The Bishop Sheridan and others of his ilk seem to be taking the viewpoint that as a Catholic, you cannot EVER vote for anyone who supports a woman’s right to abortion, nor for anyone who is in favor of the death penalty, nor support any candidate who goes against any of the church’s teachings, as doing so could put your “eternal salvation” at risk. This seems to me to be not only medieval but a thinly disguised political statement.
As a Catholic, do you accept that going against church teachings in any way compromises you in the eyes of your God?
How do you feel about being told who you may vote for based on church teachings?
Do you believe you are risking “eternal salvation” by voting for a candidate who supports a woman’s right to abortion?
How much influence do church teachings have over how you live your life?
If you were/are a member of a Diocese, would the kind of statements made in the article draw you closer to your religion or push you away?
Bishop Sheridan is engaged in wishful thinking. Catholics have the same capacity for free will and independent thought as anybody else. When the Church announces to the world that they have a billion members and are the world’s largest Christian denomination, they count the members who disagree with church leaders on crucial issues. If they included only tunnel-visioned True Believers who adopted the party line on all matters, I doubt they’d have a million members worldwide.
Even assuming a level of devotion to the Catholic teachings to the point where a checklist of positions is followed one quickly would run into a problem. There are very few candidates available who hold all of the “acceptable” positions. Should I abdicate all of my responsibilities as a citizen, regardless of the consequences of my non-participation?
If our government had some sort of proportional representation system then it could be argued with some justification that voting for a what is effectively a Catholic party, with candidates espousing positions in line with their religious beliefs, would be almost doctrinally required of Catholics (as long as the party matched in deed what they stated in name). Neither party members nor candidates would need be Catholic - merely that the party platform would coincidentally match up to the teachings of the Catholic Church (with respect to secular issues), as per the desires of party members. Hopefully such a party would manage to steer clear of corrupting entaglements with direct church issues and politics (unlikely though). Of course the chances of the individual Catholic voter agreeing with the officially determined consequences of Church dogma will vary substantially from issue to issue.
We don’t live under a PR system though. Realistically, at every level of government above local I have (at best) a choice of two parties, two candidates who have to cater to a wide variety of people and interest groups in order to get elected. If I want a realistic anti-death penalty candidate elected, I end up with a great deal of the liberal agenda tacked on, for better or for worse - not all of which may be in agreement with my religious beliefs. If I want a realistic pro-life candidate elected then I again end up with a vast quantity of platform with which I may not agree. The good bishop would have me either majestically abstain or vote for a candidate who is unlikely in the extreme to win. My feeling is that I must make a judgement as to whether the issues and interests in which I believe are better served in moderating the course of the government (by choosing the major party and candidate who overall more closely agrees with me) or making a protest statement (by voting for a more ideal sacrificial candidate).
One of the nice things about voting in NY is the existence of cross party endorsements. There are a whole lot of minor parties who put up their own candidates for certain offices but who also endorse major party candidates. These parties (liberal, conservative, right to life, independence, working families, etc.)represent somewhat purer, if narrower party lines than the ungainly coalitions which make up the Republican and Democratic parties. The minor parties need neither attempt to seduce 51% of the voters nor cater to out of state interests and issues. This allows the voter to let their preferred candidate know what issues are most important to them by voting for that candidate on a minor party line. It is not unusual for a candidates margin of victory to be less than the vote received on the minor party line. These parties tend to have far smaller memberships than the votes they receive come election day as a number of Republican and Democratic voters use those party lines to send a message on election day while still wanting to participate in the major party primaries.
This is emotional blackmail, and it irks me. The teachings of the church are NOT all set in stone. Just in my lifetime I’ve seen a number of things change, such as allowing girls to serve on the altar. The rules about fasting during Lent have been modified too. Is the Pope going to be denied communion because he made an informed decision regarding the practice of our faith in modern times?
In Ireland, days before the 1992 referendum on abortion, all the parsih priests were asked to read out a letter from the Vatican, stating that if they voted yes in the referendum ( on 3 questions: Abortion, Freedom to Travel, Freedom of information) they were going to hell.
Depends on the teaching, whether it’s doctrine or just interpretation, or canon law. But yes, I believe that “going against” (somewhat vague term) the teaching of the Church as defined by councils of the Church and ex cathedra statements of the Pope compromises me in the eyes of God.
Depends on who’s doing the telling. I welcome guidance and thoughtful discussion of issues.
I believe that abortion is a tragedy. Sometimes it might even be a terrible sin, although I don’t presume to judge a woman who finds herself in a difficult and frightening position. I believe abortion must be considered as part of the “seamless garment” ethic, which regards the death penalty, euthanasia, war, deprivation of health care and adequate nutrition and the like, as equally terrible tragedies. I will vote accordingly. As a poster pointed out above, we don’t elect our officials by a proportional representation system, and no candidate espouses any position remotely close to the “seamless garment” position. I will vote in a way that I believe will maximize good and minimize the bad.
An enormous amount. I hope to increase that amount in the future.
Neither – the Church exists independently of its hierarchy. Often bishops, cardinals and Popes are idiots. Those kind of statements definitely make me want to engage in productive dialogue with the local hierarchy, though.
There you have my thoughts (somewhat general) on the subject.
