Yesterday, I posed the pointed question: "Can a Catholic with a well-formed conscience and respect for innocent human life look into the sepulchre of John Kerry’s putrified record of accommodating death, all the while claiming communion with the Church, and then turn away to pull the lever next to his name in the polling booth?"
Today, Michael Perry responds: "Unless Greg claims that no Catholic who chooses to vote for Kerry has 'a well-formed conscience and respect for innocent human life,' Greg must answer his own question in the affirmative. If Greg does claim that no Catholic who votes for Kerry--not Mark Roche, not Cathy Kaveny, not Peggy Steinfels, and so on--has 'a well-formed conscience and respect for innocent human life,' . . . well, I'll leave that claim for others to judge."
As I had confessed at the end of yesterday’s posting, Michael could justifiably complain that by answering with a question of my own I thereby was evading the question Michael had asked in his earlier posting, which was whether anyone truly would claim that the argument against Kerry was so iron-clad, so irrefutable, so ineluctably connected to Church teaching, etc. that a Catholic casting a vote for Kerry would thereby either be behaving irrationally or engaging in serious sin.
All right, Michael, you have me. I find myself unable in light of my own fallible human reasoning, my incompetence as being a sinner myself, and my obvious lack of any ecclesial authority to judge a fellow Catholic who proclaims fealty to the cause of life and yet casts a vote for Kerry as, on the basis of that act alone, having committed grave sin or removed him or herself from communion with the Church. Would I see such a vote as imprudent and foolish? Yes. Mendacious? Presumably no (as only God can read the heart).
But where does that lead us? How does that acknowledgment advance the discussion? To admit that a position may not be so utterly absurd as to be frivolous is not an affirmative argument in its favor. To say that someone who seriously undermines the cause of life by casting a misguided vote has not thereby sinned is no reason to fall in line behind that person.
Instead, what I’ve been trying to emphasize in my postings is that these side disputes about personalities and who is chief among sinners are distractions. The central point is that the culture of life remains under assault in this society and thus when we undertake the most fundamental act in a democracy of electing our leaders, we are called as Catholics to make very sure that we have done our homework and that we know exactly what we are doing. It is right and appropriate that we be challenged as to whether our political choices comport with Church teaching and flow from a well-formed conscience. Those who are tempted to vote for Kerry because of extreme antipathy toward Bush are obliged at least do the admittedly disturbing task of fully examining the evidence regarding Kerry's anti-life affiliations and actions. They should give solemn consideration to the potential harm, both to the political pro-life movement and to the Church’s continuing witness, that may attend the elevation of the hero of the abortion industry to the highest office held by any person, by any Catholic, in the nation.
In my experience in talking with many such persons and reading the words of more, those who say they are planning to vote for Kerry as the lesser of evils often seem ready to do so in almost willful ignorance of the full ugliness of his record, apparently because they don’t want to be troubled with stark facts that might dissuade them from that course. They want to pretend he is just another reluctantly pro-choice politician weakly unable to break from the Democratic Party line. The evidence is much more disturbing. The op-eds and essays making apologies for the reluctant Kerry supporter, to which we have been directed on this blog, are of the same nature, never forthrightly confronting full enormity of Kerry’s record.
Thus, I return to the tough and unpleasant question with which I ended my last posting and begin this one. If someone can honestly and in good conscience answer the question with a vote for Kerry, I can only shake my head and say I do not understand.
If the tragedy of a Kerry presidency does unfold, I also will have to accept my own responsibility in having failed to speak with sufficient intelligence and clarity, although I shouldn't flatter myself into thinking that my words could have made that much difference. Still, in my own small way, I will continue to work with others in bringing Kerry's record of enthusiastic accommodation of death and eager affiliation with the death-dealers out of the shadows. I hope that the truth will speak for itself and the more it is revealed the less likely that Kerry's coronation will proceed.
Thought this would be of interest to readers of this blog: In today's New York Times, in his "Beliefs" column, Catholic Peter Steinfels, a former editor of Commonweal, reports that according to the latest poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, "white Catholics, who three weeks ago favored President Bush by 49 percent to 33 percent[,] now favor Senator Kerry, 50 percent to 43 percent." I've excerpted most of the column below.
Greg Sisk asks, at the end of his posting yeterday: "[C]an a Catholic with a well-formed conscience and respect for innocent human life look into the sepulchre of John Kerry’s putrified record of accommodating death, all the while claiming communion with the Church, and then turn away to pull the lever next to his name in the polling booth?" Unless Greg claims that no Catholic who chooses to vote for Kerry has "a well-formed conscience and respect for innocent human life," Greg must answer his own question in the affirmative. If Greg does claim that no Catholic who votes for Kerry--not Mark Roche, not Cathy Kaveny, not Peggy Steinfels, and so on--has "a well-formed conscience and respect for innocent thuman life," . . . well, I'll leave that claim for others to judge.
Michael P.
An Undissolved Alliance PETER STEINFELS
When the votes are counted on Nov. 2, will religion be the loser?
Some people clearly think so. They agree with Alexis de Tocqueville's analysis in his classic "Democracy in America." Already in the 1830's, Tocqueville had divined much of what has recently been rediscovered about the religious faith of Americans.
"From the beginning," he wrote, "politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved."
He believed that for Americans, religion offered crucial moral support for democracy; indeed, it was nothing less than "the first of their political institutions."
But Tocqueville attributed this power, as well as the very religious faith of the people, to the fact that "religion in America takes no direct part in the government." The clergy here, unlike that of Europe, did not normally seek office, and churches kept their distance from partisan politics.
In 2004, Tocqueville would almost certainly feel that by widespread entanglement in the presidential election, religion has inflicted on itself wounds that will not heal quickly.
The handful of vocal Roman Catholic bishops who suggest that voting for Senator John Kerry would be a deed gravely wrong in the church's eyes, a sin akin to actually performing abortions, have certainly swollen the ranks of Catholics deeply alienated from their church. No such obvious price is being paid by politically militant evangelicals, but some thoughtful evangelical leaders have begun to warn of the long-run cost of identifying their faith with one political party.
Of course, the opposite case can be argued. Not long ago, political scientists were not even interested in gathering data about how different religious groups voted. Well-educated Americans had absorbed the idea that religion was something to be kept private. Talking about your faith was like leaving the bedroom curtains open, and thinking about your neighbors' faith was like peering into their windows.
By demonstrating political relevance, religion has finally gained a little respect. "Thus may some good come out of this often rancid campaign," the inveterately optimistic E. J. Dionne Jr. wrote this week in his syndicated Washington Post column. Noting the bumper sticker announcing that "God is NOT a Republican ... or a Democrat," Mr. Dionne welcomed the recognition that "religious people are not monolithic in their views." Likewise, "the myth that religion lives only on the political right is being exploded."
The upshot, he concluded, is that "honest debate among believers will again be a normal part of the nation's public life," a development that would be "a benefit to democracy and to faith communities, too."
John Carr, director of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' Department of Social Development and World Peace, entertains a similar hope. After two months of traveling around the country, Mr. Carr finds that Catholics are "really wrestling" with the moral issues posed by the election: abortion, yes, but also the war in Iraq and other issues.
The depth of moral pondering is far beyond what he encountered four years ago, he said; and the abbreviated lists of what some conservative Catholics term "non-negotiable" issues have not eclipsed the broader range of "moral priorities'' outlined in "Faithful Citizenship," the brochure that the bishops issued on the eve of the election year. The first of those priorities was indeed "protecting human life," but the brochure went on to list other concerns like "protecting family life," "pursuing social justice" and "practicing global solidarity."
In fact, the lingering notion that there is a lockstep Catholic vote represented by a minority of outspoken bishops is challenged by the latest poll from the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. It reports a sharp swing among white Catholics, who three weeks ago favored President Bush by 49 percent to 33 percent but now favor Senator Kerry, 50 percent to 43 percent.
Michael Perry refers us to two essays by Father John Langan and Margaret O'Brien Steinfels, which he describes as making the case that a conscientious Catholic legitimately could vote for John Kerry for President, despite his record on abortion. He then asks whether anyone still would still insist that a Catholic cannot vote for Senator Kerry, and, if so, asks that interlocutor to clearly explain how and why the positions taken in the two essays “are not merely arguments that you reject, but unreasonable arguments that any faithful Catholic must, in good conscience, reject.”
I don’t read either Father Langan or Ms. Steinfels as actually making the case that a conscientious Catholic could vote for John Kerry. So it is difficult to rebut that which is never quite said.
Father Langan’s essay never mentions John Kerry, much less suggests how a good Catholic should or may vote in a particular election. Instead, he offers strategic thoughts about how best to advance a culture of life and also questions whether completely outlawing abortion is a necessary and appropriate means to that end. While I find much to praise, much to dispute, and much to think about in Father Langan’s essay, it sheds little light ultimately on the peculiar John Kerry problem. Father Langan never suggests that a politician who loyally has carried water for the abortion industry is worthy of support by any Catholic. In fact, his rebuke of “Catholic politicians [who are] the more or less willing subjects of an unholy orthodoxy imposed by pro-choice pressure groups” left me thinking that he might draw the line against a professing Catholic political figure who has assiduously courted and ingratiated himself directly with the abortion industry.
Ms. Steinfels certainly does use the name “John Kerry” in her essay, but not often and not with any attention to detail or affirmative endorsement. Instead, the essence of her essay is an argument why a Catholic ought not vote for President Bush (as she devotes the lion’s share of discussion to the President’s purported flaws, with precious few words left for Senator Kerry). She concludes the essay by casting her lot with John Kerry, but she seems to do so only by default (thereby forgetting that there are more than two choices in any election). In sum, Ms. Steinfels at most makes the case for reluctantly supporting a generic candidate with vaguely pro-choice views (and wrongly assumes that John Kerry fits this bill), when the alternative choice is unpalatable.
Ms. Steinfels, like so many who insist they genuinely are pro-life but that John Kerry nonetheless is the lesser of two evils, assiduously avoids more than a glance at Senator Kerry’s complete record in all its ugliness. These reluctant Kerry supporters direct all their fire at President Bush, while giving Senator Kerry a pass by characterizing him somewhat innocuously as pro-choice or somewhat less than perfect on abortion. How can one reach the conclusion that one politician is a lesser evil than another if the respective evils are never fully explored? Why are so many ready and eager to catalog in fine detail the asserted misadventures and failings of the Bush Administration, while unwilling to scrutinize the publicly-available record of legislative votes, speeches, political rallies, endorsements, and campaign contributions made or received by Senator Kerry over the course of decades. Like so many others, Ms. Steinfels in her essay never forthrightly examines John Kerry’s depressingly miserable record on issues of life.
Indeed, Ms. Steinfels largely avoids the abortion issue as practically unimportant in this election, saying that the climate for legal abortion is unlikely to be much affected in the next four years, in either direction, regardless of the outcome of the presidential election. But consider John Kerry’s support for public funding of abortions, his promise that his first act as President will be to restore abortion funding to international organizations, his litmus test of support for Roe v. Wade for Supreme Court nominees (thereby limiting his choice to those who are publicly identified as pro-choice and thus probably strongly so), his promises to veto legislation placing any limitations on the abortion-license, etc., etc. Making the assumption that a President Kerry would not make any difference for the worse is a most dangerous gamble and a gamble with the lives of unborn thousands.
Ms. Steinfels argues that “[t]he law will only change when the culture changes and women change their minds about abortion.” If by “change,” she means a complete and final end to the tragedy of abortion (ignoring the constructive interim steps of limitations, notifications, waiting-periods, counseling, non-funding, etc.) , surely she is correct. But electing a pro-abortion Catholic who for decades has exhibited public contempt for the Church’s consistent witness to life seems an odd way to move the culture. Indeed, those of us troubled by the prospect of a President Kerry fear most greatly the potential impact upon the fragile but meaningful maturing in public understanding and respect for life that have occurred over the last several years. The scandal of the most prominent Catholic in the nation standing four-square against his own Church on the pre-eminent issue of our times, without repercussion and while holding up the cover of support by other prominent Catholics, could be devastating. The damage to the Church’s witness for life could take decades to reverse.
It is for these reasons that I simply would ask all of us to take a hard look at John Kerry’s record as a sycophantic acolyte of the abortion industry, happily accepting the donations of abortionists, eagerly joining rallies organized by those who not only advocate for abortion rights but perform the deadly deed. To be sure, during these latter days of the campaign, John Kerry has hinted that he may be personally opposed to abortion, although he cannot bring himself even to say that directly, instead engaging in such circumlocutions as saying he has respect for those who have another view or that his views on abortion are an “article of faith,” by which he means something to be utterly ignored in his public life. Even now, he has never spoken words of unequivocal condemnation of abortion, he has never agreed that abortion is an intrinsic evil (and that those performing abortions thereby are directly complicit in evil), he has never disassociated himself from his abortion industry allies and financial backers. When it comes to abortion, the words of Kate Michelman, president of the NARAL Pro-Choice America (which I’ve quoted before) linger: “Even on the most difficult issues, we’ve never had to worry about John Kerry’s position.”
In the end, can a Catholic with a well-formed conscience and respect for innocent human life look into the sepulchre of John Kerry’s putrified record of accommodating death, all the while claiming communion with the Church, and then turn away to pull the lever next to his name in the polling booth?
By leaving the question dangling, have I dodged Michael Perry's question? Well, so be it. I'm answering a question with a question.
According to uber-lawblogger Howard Bashman the First Circuit just ruled, in Eulitt v. Maine, that the Equal Protection Clause does not require Maine to pay toward the tuition of students attending "sectarian" schools, even though the State does contribute toward the tuition of students attending private, "non-sectarian" schools. In a nutshell, the
First Circuit's old decision in Strout (also concerning Maine's "tuitioning" program) is still basically right, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's intervening decisions in Zelman and Davey.
I apologize in advance for the "inside baseball" nature of these observations. That said, I think it is fair to say that Judge Selya embraced a broad reading of Davey's "play in the joints" idea. Although I had thought that the Chief Justice's opinion in that case took care to emphasize that Washington State *did* permit religious schools to participate in the education-funding program at issue there -- and simply excluded a particular course of study (for the ministry) -- Judge Selya said that Davey "recognized that state entities, in choosing how to provide education, may act upon their legitimate concerns about excessive entanglement with religion, even thought the Establishment Clause may not require them to do so." Again, I had read Davey as focusing not on "concerns about excessive entanglement" generally, but on a specific set of concerns -- with deep historical roots -- about funding the training of clergy.
Judge Selya also read, in my view, the Lukumi case quite narrowly. In his view, that decision is about (and only about) discriminatory laws that are motivated by "animus"; a law that treats religion differently -- or, that discriminates against religion -- but that is not obviously motivated by animus, is not, on Judge Selya's reading, vulnerable under the Free Exercise Clause. (The court did not take up the question whether -- as I believe -- exclusions like this were, as a historical matter, motivated by "animus" against Catholic education).
In any event, it appears that I and many others were mistaken in thinking that Davey would not undermine the argument that a school-voucher program that excluded religious schools (but not other private schools) is unconstitutional. So, for those who have not been following these cases closely, here's the bottom line: If Judge Selya's understanding of Locke v. Davey is validated and embraced by other courts, much of the promise for religious freedom and education reform of recent Religion Clause and Free Speech decisions by the Supreme Court will evaporate. At bottom, Selya's claim is that a majority's "anti-establishment interest" -- it's desire not to treat equally religious institutions and expression -- trumps the equal-treatment and free-exercise rights of religious institutions and believers, even if the State's understanding of "disestablishment" is idiosyncratic or overly restrictive. We'll see . . .
Notre Dame's Center for Ethics and Culture has a blog-type feature available now, here. This "Discussions" site has many entries that will be of interest to MOJ readers. Check out also the details of the Center's upcoming "Epiphanies of Beauty" conference.
Thanks to Rick for posting the link to the Gumbleton op-ed, which i think is worth reading in its entirety. I'm a big fan of Gumbleton's and thought some MOJ readers might be interested in the fact that National Catholic Reporter make available his weekly homilies, which are automatically e-mailed to interested persons each week. I often find them quite good and his emphasis on addressing the needs of the poor and vulnerable is consistent and strong. The link from last week's (I haven't yet recieved this week's) is here.
--Susan
Here is an op-ed (worth reading alongside Archbishop Chaput's, below) by Detroit's Bishop Gumbleton, called "President's Policies Are in Opposition to a Culture of Life." (Thanks to Amy Welborn for the link). Gumbleton states:
How are Catholics to deal with [the] split between [President Bush's pro-life] rhetoric and reality? Ours must be a prophetic voice. We must call on Bush to account for a deeply troubling record. And we must also challenge Democrats to embrace the entire culture of life, not just a selective economic and social agenda. The sad reality of American political life is that no candidate or party embraces and advances a "culture of life" in the fullest sense of the term.
Yet responsible citizenship calls us to cast our vote Nov. 2. How do we choose amongst imperfect candidates? We must each consult our conscience and consider the entirety of church teaching. And, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' voter guide, Faithful Citizenship, encourages, we should measure "all candidates, policies, parties and platforms by how they protect or undermine the life, dignity, and rights of the human person, whether they protect the poor and vulnerable and advance the common good."
What we will not do is vote for a candidate just because he uses words that we like to hear; remembering, as scripture tells us, that we must be "doers of the Word and not hearers only."
Here is a link to an op-ed by Denver's Archbishop Chaput, "Faith and Patriotism", in today's New York Times. He opens with this:
The theologian Karl Barth once said, "To clasp the hands in prayer is the beginning of an uprising against the disorder of the world."
That saying comes to mind as the election approaches and I hear more lectures about how Roman Catholics must not "impose their beliefs on society" or warnings about the need for "the separation of church and state." These are two of the emptiest slogans in current American politics, intended to discourage serious debate. No one in mainstream American politics wants a theocracy. Nor does anyone doubt the importance of morality in public life. Therefore, we should recognize these slogans for what they are: frequently dishonest and ultimately dangerous sound bites.
I have no doubt that the "separation of church and state", properly understood, is good for -- even necessary for -- authentic religious freedom. That said, Archbishop Chaput makes a good point here, I think. He continues, later in the piece:
The civil order has its own sphere of responsibility, and its own proper autonomy, apart from the church or any other religious community. But civil authorities are never exempt from moral engagement and criticism, either from the church or its members. The founders themselves realized this.
The founders sought to prevent the establishment of an official state church. Given America's history of anti-Catholic nativism, Catholics strongly support the Constitution's approach to religious freedom. But the Constitution does not, nor was it ever intended to, prohibit people or communities of faith from playing an active role in public life. Exiling religion from civic debate separates government from morality and citizens from their consciences. That road leads to politics without character, now a national epidemic.
It strikes me that Chaput's observations are valuable, wherever we might stand on the question that Michael Perry, Greg Sisk, Cathy Kaveny, Mark Roche, Gerry Bradley, and Robert George have been addressing (i.e., can faithful Catholics conclude that, all things considered, it is better for the common good to vote for John Kerry?).
Archbishop Chaput has an op-ed in today's New York Times entitled, "Faith and Patriotism." In it, he chides Catholics who argue that we must not "impose our beliefs on society" or who are unwilling to stand up for Catholic principles in public debate out of respect for the concept of "separation of church and state."
"We are doubly unfaithful--," he writes, "both to our religious convictions and our democratic responsibilities--if we fail to support the right to life of the unborn child. Our duties to social justice by no means end there. But they do always begin there, because the right to life is foundational."
I certainly agree wholeheartedly with the archbishop. The right to life is foundational, and it encompasses a number of issues beyond abortion. The problem for me is how do I go about supporting the right to life in a way that is consistent with both my religious faith and my democratic responsibilities? As Michael Perry so aptly pointed out in his most recent post, I would not dream of telling anyone that she could not vote for President Bush and honor her faith commitments The issues with which we are confronted in this election are much too complicated for such simplistic reductionism. I take my religious faith and my democratic responsibiilities very seriously. Personally, however, I would abstain from voting rather than vote for George Bush.
I find it incredibly disturbing that many Catholics see the theoretical potential for an overturning of Roe v. Wade under a Bush administration as the only responsible way a Catholic can support the lives of unborn children. As other posts have pointed out, more unborn children have died during this Republican administration than in the previous Democratic one. One may argue about the reasons, but the facts remain the same. And what of the lives of countless innocents in Iraq, and potentially, Iran and North Korea that would be at risk under a second Bush term? The fact that war may be licit in some circumstances does not relieve this administration of its moral responsibility for the current conflict, which now rests on justifications that have little or no support in Catholic teaching, or for the destabilization of the global order that their announcement of an immoral policy of pre-emptive wars will inevitably create. Are unborn children in the United States more deserving of life than Iraqi children, many of whom die slowly and painfully as a result of injuries sustained during this conflict, or because of the poor health and nutrition that is always a part of the social breakdown that results from war?
Democratic responsibility is about a lot more than voting. A Catholic citizen can certainly practice "faith with works" in any number of meaningful ways that have a much more profound effect on the life of the society in which he lives than the simple act of casting a ballot for president. Indeed, it is often on the local level (and in local elections) that the real work for supporting life often has its most immediate effects. Are Catholics voting to fund health, nutrition, education, and social service programs for poor children? Are they working to help these children in other ways? When a Catholic votes for a candidate who vows to cut taxes and the public services those taxes support, does she recognize the long-term consequences of that choice?
It will take years, at best, for a Republican administration to do anything meaningful to change the current abortion laws, but I know that George Bush and his allies have been doing, and will continue to do, all that they can to redistribute wealth upward as quickly as possible. I know that they see war as just another foreign policy tool and they are willing to use it regardless of what the international community (or the Catholic Church, for that matter) thinks. I know that they disparage our longstanding allies and that they have disdain for international institutions and processes that they cannot control. I know that innocent people have suffered and died because of these things, and that they and others will continue to suffer and die as a direct result of his policies if he remains in office. I know that this administration has brought out some of our nation's worst isolationist and nativitist tenedencies. Yet, I am supposed to ignore all this and vote for him because he might make a few appointments to the Supreme Court that might lead to more restrictive abortion laws? I don't think so.
The web site of the Chronicle of Higher Education has made available some fascinating essays on Religion and Culture by 10 scholars. Here's the blurb:
What role do or should religious institutions play in society? Does religion shape culture, or vice versa? Does it have a political content? How has the relationship of religion to American society changed in the contemporary world?
Many new and forthcoming scholarly books on religion and American culture seek to answer questions like those, which are part of some of today's most pressing public debates, underlying such controversies as abortion, school vouchers, the roots of terrorism, and many more.
In light of the recent scholarship and public debates, The Chronicle asked 10 leading scholars to give their views on religion in American life today.
The participating scholars include George Marsden, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Robert Wuthnow, and many others. Check it out.
