Is There Room for the Seamless Garment in American Politics? Or, the Tragedy of the Catholic Liberal

Greg Sisks's post and Rob Vischer's follow up raise so many issues it is hard to know where to begin. Let me try to parse them out, and then add some comments where appropriate.

1. The Religious question:Kerry's position on abortion raises the very familiar question of what responsibility a Catholic public official has AS A CATHOLIC with respect to well-established positions of the Church in the conduct of her public responsibilities. It also raises the corollary question of what the consequences for that person's status within the Church should be if she fails to meet those responsibilities. For example, does a Catholic legislator or executive have a religious obligation to vote against, otherwise oppose, or take affirmative action against laws or policies that would violate the Church's strictures on abortion, euthanasia, same sex marriage and so on? What is the range of issues to which that obligation extends? Are their prudential limits, particularly when the church's position and the values of the polity are widely out of sync, as they became re abortion? If that person is so obligated, and fails to do so, what should be the religious consequences? Excommunication? Exclusion from full participation? Or just a sin on her conscience? I will leave it to those more learned than I am theologically to comment on that.

2. The Cuomo question: Many Catholic Democrats have taken the Cuomo position -- personal opposition to legalization of abortion (on Catholic principles, presumably), but refusal to oppose it publicly, because that would be inflicting private, religious values on persons who do not share them. Two problems here. First, is that an adequate position from a religious standpoit, ie, is it justifiable for a Catholic? Second, does it make sense as a statement of political philosophy, ie, that one should not oppose a law even though one has serious religious (or even secular moral) reservations about it, because that would be "inflicting" values that others do not share upon others? Or is this only a problem when those values are religious? Obviously, this is an aspect of the religion in the public square problem.

3. The Historical question: The Kerry-as-a-Catholic problem raises interesting historical questions. The "Catholic question" has changed a bit since Kennedy in 1960. At that time, there was still the old concern that Catholics could not be trusted in the democracy because they had to take orders from a foreign power, ie the Pope. Paul Blanshard's scurrilous Cathloic Power and American Democracy had been a best seller only a few years before, and reiterated the old fear that Rome was just waiting for its chance to take us over -- modernized through an analogy to that other aggressive totalitarian threat, the Soviet Union. Kennedy managed to overcome that through his express disavowal of obedience to Rome. I don't think anyone today is worried about a Vatican takeover; I think the issue for a Catholic candidate is whether he will expressly disavow allegience to a core of positions strongly associated with the Church, particularly abortion. For a Democratic candidate, such a disavowal is essential. The threat from "Rome" is not evangelization, or foreign subversion, but where it stands in our culture wars, which wasn't reaqlly the issue in 1960.

4. The Political question: This leads me to what I regard as a personal problem for me, and many other Catholics like me. As Peter Steinfels reminded us, we are a people divided. Many Catholics identify most strongly with traditionalist versions of other faiths, particularly evangelicals and Orthodox Jews, on a host of issues, particularly (though not exclusively) those relating to abortion, sexuality and the family. Many other Catholics share some of the same convictions as the traditionalists, but have a host of other concerns that traditionalists do not share, or do not share in the same way or to the same extent. Many of us in that second category tend to use Cardinal Bernadin's image of the seamless garment of life as an organizing principle, and link our opposition to abortion to opposition to capital punishment, commitment to peace, radical concern with poverty, and concern for the dignity of women and minorities. Naturally, this linkage drives many traditionalists crazy, because they feel that it devalues the particular horror of abortion. An argument for another time. My point here is that we seamless garment types have no political home. The Democrats have thrown us out of the party because of our pro-life views (vide Gov. Casey, a classic pro-life liberal). On the other hands, the Republicans are usually wrong about everything else we care about as Catholics. So, where do we go? The tragedy of the Catholic liberals is that we are forced to choose between the lesser of two evils (or two "weevils", as Captain Aubrey would say). Perhaps we should start a "Seamless Garment" third party.