Election Reflections: More Questions

A response to Sean Dudley’s first point in the post by Michael S: I think the key word that seems to be generating differing interpretations of Forming Consciences is “may”: “a candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to “disqualify” a candidate from receiving support.”  I think many people read the “may” (not “must”) as leaving room for discretion and prudential judgment on the part of the voter (especially because the statement seems to be referring to the thought process of voters). 

Here’s a holler for help from folks with more depth in moral theology that I have, because I do not know the answers to these questions about the scope of the authority of the teaching office of the bishop:  1) is there space within the tradition for a mid-point between a completely “individual” (and perhaps “free rein”) notion of conscience formation, and the notion that lay people must simply follow how a particular bishop has worked out the prudential application of the teaching in a given social context?  2) Should we make a distinction between a particular bishop’s reflection on the prudential application of Church teaching which can inform how voters consider the issues, and a much broader claim that such particular interpretation is required as a matter of Church teaching and authority (at least within that bishop’s diocese)?  3) Does all of this depend on the issue?  Eg, is abortion somehow different because of the urgency that this claim has on our consciences and our community at this point in history?  Or more broadly, is the analysis for “intrinsic evils” somehow different than other social maladies?  If so, why? 

And on that last point, it would be interesting to mesh the current conversation about the election with some negative reactions to the strong statements on the part of some bishops a couple of years ago pressing for changes in law and policy to respect the dignity of undocumented immigrants, to probe whether the foundational arguments about the scope of the authority of the teaching office of the bishop are the same or different, and why.