Voting for the Common Good-- yes, but...

During the past several days, I have had an opportunity to reflect on the pamphlet “Voting for the Common Good—A Practical Guide for Conscientious Catholics” prepared by the group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG). It is an interesting compilation of reflections that merits the careful study of those of us who are Catholics and who will be exercise the right to vote next month. It is one effort that attempts to bring together two facets of Catholics who are simultaneously citizens of two “cities.” The text of the CACG document is [HERE].

While I have reviewed several other texts prepared by other Catholic groups who offer guidelines or other counsel for Catholics who will soon be voting in local, state, and national elections, I have decided to offer a few comments on the CACG document.

I begin by noting that there are a number of points this pamphlet makes that are shared by most if not all Catholic citizens. For example, it asserts that Catholics have a responsibility to participate in the political process. The text also cautions that voters need to be mindful not only of what candidates promise but also of what they actually deliver once elected to office. Moreover, it offers some sage advice that rarely is there a perfect candidate for Catholic voters, regardless of party affiliation, for each office for which there is an election. The text also states that Catholic citizens must be mindful of the Great Commandment and the interdependence of all people both locally and globally. It seems to also affirm that not all political issues are of equal weight or importance for the Catholic voter.

So far, so good. But then the document makes certain claims that merit careful scrutiny. While it mentions issues that should be of particular importance to Catholic voters (e.g., poverty, war, human rights, abortion, concerns for the environment), it does not mention other pressing issues for Catholic voters like euthanasia, moral concerns about particular biotechnology issues such as embryonic stem cell research, and issues pertaining to marriage and the family. While correctly identifying some sources of the Church’s teachings on important political, economic, and social issues (e.g., Papal texts, council documents, Scripture, and the writings of the early Church fathers), it does not include important, relevant dicastery documents, although they are cited in several notes within the pamphlet. It is at this point that more substantive concerns emerge.

For example, there is an important presentation in the pamphlet about conscience –“listening to one’s conscience is necessary to make any moral decisions.” (p. 4) But the exercise of conscience by Catholics, including when they participate in public life, cannot be based on a subjective understanding of conscience, either in concept or in application. A subjective understanding of conscience is a perilous course to take, as John Courtney Murray, S.J. once counseled. The conscience of the faithful Catholic citizen, in its authentic form, is informed by objective truth as God has revealed and as the Church teaches. These are points made in Nn. 7 and 8 of the 2002 Doctrinal Note on Some Questions Regarding the Participation of Catholics in Political Life (Doctrinal Note) [HERE].

In this context, the pamphlet comments on the virtue of prudence as the guide that assists in the exercise of conscience. (pp. 5-6) The text then states that “we often must vote for candidates who may hold the ‘wrong’ Catholic positions on some issues in order to maximize the good our vote achieves in other areas.” Once again, we must be mindful that not all political issues are of equal weight or importance. The Doctrinal Note, N. 3, reminds us that “Democracy must be based on the true solid foundation of non-negotiable ethical principles, which are the underpinning of life in society.” The Doctrinal Note continues by stating, in N. 4, that “a well-formed Christian conscience does not permit one to vote for a political program or an individual law which contradicts the fundamental contents of faith and morals.” In this regard, the pamphlet seems to suggest that a voter is limited to exercising his or her franchise to the two (or several) candidates that appear on a ballot. I suggest that in the proper exercise of authentic conscience, as prudentially guided, a Catholic voter should consider other options when they are available. For example, if it is permissible under the local voting law, a faithful Catholic might want to consider voting against both candidates through either abstention on that particular office or providing a write-in candidate.

The CACG text also indicates, p. 6, that “As politically active Catholics, our primary responsibility is to the common good.” While indeed the common good is relevant to the Catholic’s participation in the political process (N. 1, Doctrinal Note; N. 75 Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World), I question that it is the “primary responsibility.” I think that the primary responsibility of the Catholic citizen is to be a faithful disciple who is always mindful of the fact that he or she is a citizen of two cities, not one. As the Doctrinal Note reminds us (N. 9), we must be attentive to “the unity of Christian life: coherence between faith and life, Gospel and culture, as recalled by the Second Vatican Council… to fulfill [our] duties faithfully in the spirit of the Gospel. It is a mistake to think that, because we have here no lasting city, but seek the city which is to come, we are entitled to shirk our earthly responsibilities; this is to forget that by our faith we are bound all the more to fulfill these responsibilities according to the vocation of each… May Christians… be proud of the opportunity to carry out their earthly activity in such a way as to integrate human, domestic, professional, scientific and technical enterprises with religious values, under whose supreme direction all things are ordered to the Glory of God.” (Quoting from N. 43, Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World)

There are two final points made by the pamphlet that require comment. The first appears in the section headed “Frequently Asked Questions” (p. 8). The third question presented in this section is this one: “Is it okay to vote for a ‘pro-choice’ candidate?” The pamphlet answers this important question by suggesting that the answer is “yes.” To substantiate its view, it refers to a “note bene” that appears at the end of a six point memorandum, “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” sent to Cardinal McCarrick in June of 2004 by Cardinal Ratzinger, then Prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith. [HERE] The complete text of the “note bene” states: “A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.” The CACG pamphlet concludes that “it could be acceptable for a Catholic to vote for a ‘pro-choice’ candidate if ‘proportionate reasons’ exist, and if the voter is voting based on those reasons and not the candidate’s ‘pro-choice’ beliefs.”

It should be clear that the licitness of the Catholic voter’s decision to vote for the pro-choice candidate depends on “proportionate reasons.” I suggest that these “proportionate reasons” cannot just be any reason, including those reached by the voter in the exercise of a private, i.e., subjective, conscience. I believe that “proportionate”, as used by Cardinal Ratzinger, implies an understanding of extraordinary or compelling reasons. Why do I say this? The “Note Bene” must be understood in relation to the rest of Cardinal Ratzinger’s memorandum and the resulting June 2004 document “Catholics in Political Life” issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops [HERE] as commented on by Cardinal Ratzinger in July of 2004 [HERE].

In his memorandum “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion,” Cardinal Ratzinger reiterated that the “Church teaches that abortion or euthanasia is a grave sin.” (N. 2) Moreover, he stated that “[n]ot all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia… There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

In their document “Catholics in Political Life” that followed, the bishops of the United States made the following important points:

• The sinfulness of those who cooperate in the evil of abortion

• The obligation to correct morally defective laws that permit abortion

• The duty of Catholics to support and advance the moral principles of Catholic teaching in public life

• Bishops do not have the role of endorsing or opposing candidates for public office, but they do posses the responsibility to form the consciences of Catholics so that the laity, in the exercise of their duties as citizens, can examine the positions of candidates and make choices based on Catholic moral and social teaching

• The Catholic community and Catholic institutions must never honor (by giving awards, honors, or platforms) those who act in defiance of fundamental moral principles as taught by the Church

In his brief July 2004 response to the bishops’ statement, Cardinal Ratzinger said: “The statement is very much in harmony with the general principles ‘Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion.’”

Taking into account these relevant exchanges, it would be dangerous to suggest that the “proportionate reasons” for voting for a pro-choice candidate by a faithful Catholic would be anything other than extraordinary and compelling.

The last point made by the CACG pamphlet meriting comment in this posting concerns the important question, p. 9, “Does voting my conscience mean I can apply my own moral standards?” The initial answer given by the pamphlet is sound: “Our faith teaches that Catholics cannot, in good conscience, disagree with the Church on questions of morality.” However, the pamphlet then backtracks by asserting that “Catholics can disagree in good conscience on the question of how to do the right thing in a practical situation.” (Italics in the original) Not only is there conflict between these two points, but the second one ignores the fact that all decisions, even practical ones, typically involve questions of morality. It seems that the authors of the pamphlet wish to suggest that there is a distinction between the theory of Catholic teaching and its practical application. If this is indeed what the authors suggest, then their reasoning is flawed and the conclusion is false. Doing the “right thing” means making a moral decision in spite of the fact that we live in an imperfect and practical world. The fact that the world is imperfect does not excuse the Catholic from exercising his or her conscience in opposition to the Church’s moral teachings.

RJA sj